
Class t_3.° _S- 

Book ^H '^^ -X 



21l 

GENERAL IND SX^khw ; ,— ^^r- 

EVIDENCE ON THE PAKT OF TJ IX^ffP" 

_ n ' - !'JG2 -.PAGE. 

Extracts 1 to 20 from diplomatic correspofrasmre' between - 

Spain and the United Stn tes i 

Extract from treaty between Mexico and the United States. U 

Convention between Texas and the United States 11 

Discoveries on the Upper Red River and Arkansas 12 

J ourney of discovery by Fragoso in 1788 13 

Order of General Wilkerson to Pike 18 

EiXtracts from Pike's report of journey up the Arkansas, etc. 18 

I. jeutenaiit Wilkinson's report . . 2'] 

Extraci from letter of Pike ^H 

What the North Fork was called prior to 1859. . ■. 24 

.Kx tracts from Marcy 's report 2-4 

" De Cordova's Travelers Guide Book 26 

" lettets of R. S. Neighbors 26 

" " Elias Rector j-; 

" - •• Wickland's New Counties of Texas -.T 

Deposition of R. B. Marcy 2t» 

" H. F. Youn;^ ■V.i 

" S. P. Ross ;^; 

- G. B. Erath :vj 

' • John S. Ford 42 

•• H.P.Bee 40 

•• \Vm. A. Pitts 40 

" F. M. Maddox. hi 

" VVm. Lanibe rt ,',(] 

Instructions Gov. Houston to Russell .Vj 

Russell's report (50 

Governor Roberts message 65 

List of documentary extracts, 1 to 13, offered in evidence by 

U. S. Commission . ■. 71 

Extracts offered in evidence by United States 72 

First Argument by U. S. Commission O'J 

Argument of Texas Commission on proposition that 
'.he boundary in question is as it was laid down in 

Melish's map K^7 

BevitMv of argument of U. S. Commission and citation of 

legal authorities- by the Texas Commission 123 

V ews of Commissioner Brackenridge 152 

First Argument of Texas Commission on estoppel and on t'.io 

proposition that the North Fork of Red River is .he 

Rio Roxo of Nachitoches. delineated on Melish's riap, 

. following the last preceding and just before the final 

argument of the U. S. Commission 

Fin il argu nent of the U. S- Commission 

The Proceedings v.f the Joint Commission, embracing page 
1 to 48 close up the volume 

L- ' I- '. '*: : 

T ;f -PT, 



1 



\(jv^\ ex(3r\v-^^vv<-\A]^ff%«-. 0-V-. '^ 



^ 



£ 



Exhibit A. 

; EVIDENCl^: PERTAINING TO TJIE BOUNJ)AKY 

UBTtVKEN 

THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS. 



REMARKS. 

Testimony, Documentary, Tuvlitional, etc., advanced to assist in de/inivr/ the 
boundary line between the 'I'errilories of the United States and the State of 
Texas. The Jirst given will he that portion of the correspondence between the 
United States and S2>ain. luith regard to Treaty limits, etc., consummated on 
the 2'2d day of February, 1819, and may be stated projects or plans proposed 
by either Spain or the United States, step by step, up to final agreement or 
settlement of terms. 

1. 
Extract from letter of James JMonroe, Secretary of State, to Luis de 
Onis, Minister of Spain, January lit, 1816: 

''You require that Spain shall be put in possession of West Florida as 
an act of justice, before a discussion of the right of the parties to it is 
entered on. 

" It is known to your government that the United States claim by ces- 
sion, at a fair equivalent, the province of Louisiana as it was held by 
France prior to the treaty of 1763, extending fi-om the River Perdido, on 
the eastern side of the Mississippi, to the Rio Bravo or Grande on the 
western. To the whole territory within those limits the United States 
consider their right established by well known facts and the fair interj^reta- 
tion of treaties." . . . (Vol. 4, American State Papers on Foreign 
Relations, page 425.) 

Extract of letter, Mr. Monroe to Luis de Onis. June 10, 1816: 

" With respect to the western boundary of Louisiana, I remark that this 
government has never doubted, since the treaty of 1803, that it extended 
to the Rio Bravo." (Id., p. 430.) 

2. 

Statement of Luis de Onis m letter to the Secretary of State, January 
16, 181": 

"I took the liberty to propose to you .... that the two powers 
should proceed with good faith to fix limits between them which 
should be mutually convenient, wliich should not be liable to controversy, 
or be unknown to or violated by the respective subjects of each. 

" You did me the honor to applaud a proposition so frank and liberal, 

made known to me with the same frankness that the United 

States desired to unite to its dominions all the teri-itories which belong to 

Spain to the east of the Missi.ssippi, and that for them they would offer to 

Spain those which were between the Rio del Norte and the Colorado. But 



— 2 — 

as not only these lands, but all those which lie between the Colorado and 
Cape North, drawing a line by the River Merniento or Mermentao towards 
tlie Presidio of Adais, and from thence by the Arroyo Onda towards 
Nachitoches, are a part of the province of Texas, belonging to and in the 
i;ninterrupted possession of his majesty, without there having been in re- 
lation thereto any dispute between France and Spain (that dispute bemg 
solely as to Nachitoches, which fort the French raised unjustly in tlie terri- 
tory of his Catliolic Majesty), it results that this proposition not only does 
not offer compensation to his Majesty of West and East Florida 
but it involves the relinquishment of the property and possessions which his 
majesty has of the territory in the province of Texas which lies between the 
Colorado and the vicinity of Nachitoches. 

" To propositions so distant from equality and reciprocal convenience in 
which we have agreed to treat these affairs, I answered that ... I 
saw myself obliged to wait for instructions; . . . but that in the 
meantime, if you should propose to me on the part of this government to 
make the Mississippi the frontier, I should see in that proposition a dispo- 
sition on the part of the United States to offer some equivalent, and I 
would recommend it to the consideration of his majesty as a fixed and 
stable limit to assure the peace and tranquility of the two nations." (Vol. 
4, American State Papers on Foreign Relations, p. 438.) 

3. 

Mr. Monroe, on the 25th of January, 1817, replied, using this language: 
"Finding by your letter that I liad distinctly understood the views of 
your government as explained by you in our late conference and stated in 
my last letter, and preceiving also that you still adhere to those views, 
which oeing altogether inconsistent with the rights of the United States 
are inadmissible, I have to repeat that this government has no motive to 
continue the negotiation on the subject of boundaries." (Id , p. 439.) 

4. 

Extract from letter of Don Luis de Onis to John Q. Adams, Secretary 
of State, Washington, December 23, 1817: 

" I also acquainted you that the King, my master, . . . would con- 
descend to cede the two Floridas to this republic, in consideration of an ex- 
change or an equivalent which might be useful or convenient to Spain. 
But as this change or equivalent must consist of a territory belonging to the 
United States, and which may offer invarinhh points, marked by nature, to fix 
the divisional line between the possessions of the Union and those of the Crown 
of Spain in a manner never to admit of doubt or controversy hereafter, 
his Catholic Majesty caused certain proposals for the said exchange or 
equivalent to be made through his principal secretary of State to the 
minister of the United States at Madrid; they were decidely declined by 
him; . . . it is consequently necessary to have recourse to others 
which may be admissible." . . . (Id., p. 452.) 

5. 

Extract from letter of Luis de Onis, January 5, 1818, to Mr. Adams: 

" I now confine myself to declare to you, sir, and to the government of 

the United States, in the name of the King, my master, that although 

Spain has an original and indisputable right to all the right l)ank of the 

Mississippi, his majesty has resolved to claim this right solely with a view 



— 3 — 

to adliere to tlie uti possidetis or state of possession, in which the crown of 
Spain was wlien she acquired Louisiana, in 17(U, and' in which that of 
France was at tlie time she made tlie cession. His majesty, paying due 
respect to all such treaties and conventions as have caused a change in the 
state of possession of the two nations in that i)art of America, religiously 
confines himself to the express period when Louisiana was circumscribed 
by tlie well known extent and boundaries with whicli it passed into the 
hands of the United States. 

•'As these boundaries to the westward of the Mississippi, although always 
notorious and acknowledged, have not been marked out with the formality 
necessary to avoid doubts and arbitrary pretentions, and as it is only evident 
that they undoubtedly proceed from the Mexican Gulf by the river Mer- 
mento or Mermentao, and Arroyo Hondo, by drawing a line between Nachi- 
toches and Adais, which crosses the Red River and extends towards the 
Missouri. I have done no more than point out the basis for the line of de- 
inarkation." . . . (Id., 459.) 

6. 

Extract from letter of J. Q. Adams to Luis de Onis, January 16. 1S18: 

"The president considers it would be an unprofitable waste of 
time to enter again at large upon topics of controversy which were . 
so thoroughly debated. ... 1 am instructed by the president to pro- 
pose to you an adjustment of all the differences between the two countries 
by an arrangement on the following terms: 

"L Spain to cede all her claims to territory eastward of the Mississipj)]. 

" 2. The Colorado from its month to its source, and from thence to tlie 
northern limits of Louisiana, to be the western boundary, or to leave that 
boundary unsettled for future arrangement." . . . (Id., 464.) 



Extract from letter of Luis de Onis, January 24, 1818, to J. Q. Adams. 
"You have proposed to me in your note a plan of arrangement 
or adjustment embracing the question of boundaries and that of indemnities, 
whicli is as follows: To settle the former you propose -that Spain shall cede 
all her claims to territory eastward of the Mississippi' (that is to say the two 
Ploridas), and 'that the Colorado from its mouth to its source, and from 
thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, shall be the western boundary of 
that province.' I have expressed in one proposal what you have stated in 
two, as both are reduced to the cession of territory by Spain. It is not only 
proposed that Spain shall cede both Ploridas to the United States, but that 
she shall likewise cede to them the vast extent of Spanish territory compre- 
hended within the line following the whole course of the Colorado. 1 pre 
sume that it is the River Colorado of Nachitoches you speak of, and not 
another bearing the same name which is still farther within the limits of the 
Spanish provinces. I leave it to you, sir, to examine tiie import of these 
two proposals, and see whether they are compatible with the principles of 
justice or with those of reciprocal utility or convenience. It is demanded 
of Spain to cede provinces and territories of the highest importance, not only 
to the eastward but to the westward of Louisiana, and that without propos- 
ing any equivalent or compensation. ... I can not refrain from ex- 
pressing my great concern at not being able in any degree to reconcile the 
proposals you have made me by order of the president with the inviolable 
principles of common justice, . . . the said proposals being altogetlier 



inadmissible. ... I shall therefore point out to you such as I con- 
ceive to be founded in justice and reciprocal convenience, and therefore can 
not fail to meet the wishes of the United States. 

'* 1. The dividing line between Louisiana and the Spanish possessions to 
be established in one of the branches of the Mississippi, either that of La 
Fourche or of the Atchafalaya, following the course of that river to its 
source, Spain to cede the two Floridas to the United State in full and com- 
plete sovereignty. In case this proposal should not appear admissible to 
your government, the following may be substituted: The uti possidetis or 
state of possession in 1763 to form the basis, and the western line of divi- 
sion to be established from the sea, at a point between the rivers Carcasa and 
the Mermento or Mermentao, running thence by Arroyo Hondo till it crosses 
the Colorado of Nachitoches, between tliat post and Adais; thence north- 
ward to a point to be fixed and laid down by commissioners respectively 
appointed for the purpose," (Id., 465, 466.) 

8. 

Extract from letter of J. Q. Adams to Luis de Onis, of March 12, 1818: 
"You perceive, sir, that the government of the United States is not pre- 
pared either to renounce any of the claims which it has been so long urging 
upon the justice of Spain or to acquiesce in any of those arguments which 
appear to you so luminous and irresistible, (p. 477.) . . . With 
regard to those parts of the province of Louisiana which have been incor- 
porated within a state of that name, it is time that discussion should cease. 
Forming a part of the territory of a sovereign and independent state of the 
Union, to dispose of them is not within the competency of the executive 
government of tlie United States, nor will discussion be hereafter con- 
tinued. But if you have proposals to make to which it is possible for the 
government of the United States to listen with a prospect of bringing them 
to any practicable conclusion, I am authorized to receive them and to con- 
clude with you a treaty for the adjustment of all the differences between the 
two nations, upon terras which may be satisfactory to both. (Id., p. 478.) 

9. 

Third Article nf " Translation of Propositions received in Mr. Onis' Letter of 
October 24, 1818, to Secrtary of War John Q. Adams. 

" 3. To avoid all cause of dispute in future, the limits of the respective 
possession of both governments to the west of the Mississippi shall be des- 
ignated by a line beginning on the Gulf of Mexico, between the rivers Mer- 
mento and Calcasia, following the Arroyo Hondo, between the Adais and 
Nachitoches, crossing the Rio Roxo or Red River at the 82d degree of lati- 
tude, and Ji3d of longitude fi'om London, according to Melish's map, and 
thence running directly north, crossing the Arkansas, the White, and the 
Osage Rivers, till it strikes the Missouri, and then following the middle of 
that river to its source, so that the territory on the right bank of the said 
river will belong to Spain, and that on tlie left bank to the United States. 
The navigation as well of the Missouri as of the Mississippi and Mermento 
shall remain free to the subjects of both parties. 

*• To fix this line with more precision, and to place the landmarks which 
shall designate exactly the limits of both nations, each of the contracting 
parties shall appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who shall meet before 
the termination of one year from the date of the ratification of this treaty, 
at Nachitoches, on Red River, and proceed to run and mark the said line 



— 5 — 

in conformity to what is above agreed upon and stipulated; they shall make 
out plans and keep journals of their proceedings; and the result agreed 
upon by them shall be considered as part of this treaty, and shall have the 
same force as if it were inserted therein," etc.* 

10. 

To which proposition John Q. Adams, under date of October 31, 1818, f 
replied: 

" Instead of it I am autliorized to propose to you the following, and to 
assure you that it is to be considered as the final offer on the part of the 
United States: Beginning at the mouth of the River Sabine, on the Gulf 
of Mexico, following the course of said river to the thirty-second degree of 
latitude; the eastern bank and all the islands in the said river to belong to 
the United States, and the western bank to Spain; thence due north to the 
northernmost part of the thirty-tliird degree of nortli latitude, and until it 
strikes the Rio Roxo, or Red River; thence following the course of the said 
river to its source, touching the chain of the Snow Mountains, in latitude 
thirty-seven degrees twenty-five minutes north, longitude one-hundred and 
six degrees iifteen minutes west, or thereabouts, as VKirked on Melislis map; 
thencc! to the summit of the said mountains and following the chain of the 
same to the forty-first parallel of latitude; thence following the said parallel 
of latitude forty-one degrees to the South Sea. The northern bank of the 
said Red River and all the islands therein to belong to the United States, 
and the southern bank of the same to Spain. 

" It is believed that this line will render the appointment of commissioners 
for fixing it more precisely unnecessary, unless it l)e for the purpose of as- 
certaining the spot where the River Sabine falls upon latitude thirty-two 
degrees north, and the line thence due north to the Red River; and the point 
of latitude forty-one degrees north on the ridge of the Snow Mountains, to 
which appointment of commissioners this government will readily agree," etc. 

11. 

To this Don Luis de Onis, on the 16th of November, 1818, as found in 
Annals of Congress, 15 Congress, '2d sess., page 1908, reiDlied: 

"Acceding as far as it is possible for me to do to the modifications proposed 
by you, and with a view of offering to the United States an additional proof 
of my wish to remove existing difficulties, I will undertake to admit the 
River Sabine instead of the Mermento as the boundary between the two 
powers, from the Gulf of Mexico, on condition that the same line proposed 
by you shall run duo north from the point where it crosses the Ri(> Roxo 
(Red River) until it strikes the Mississip))i, and extend thence along the 
middle of the latter to its source, leaving to Spain the territory lying to the 
right, and to tlie United States the territory lying to the left of tl^.e same. 
What you add respecting the extension of tlie same line beyond the Mis- 
souri along the Spanish possessions to the Pacific ocean exceeds, by its mag- 
nitude and its transcendency, all former demands and pretensions started liy 
the United States. Confining myself therefore to the powers granted me by 
my sovereign, I am unable to stipulate anything on this point," etc. 



*Sce -Vniials of Conpress, lOtli Conf;icss, 2d sess., vol. 2, 1819, page 1 
■{•See Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2d sess., 1819, page 1903. 



900. 



— 6 — 

12. 

To this Jolin Q. Adams, on November 30, 1818,* replied: 
"As you have now declared that you are not authorized to agree, eitlier 
to the course of the Red River (Rio Roxo) for the boundary, or to the forty- 
first parallel of latitude, from the Snow Mountains to the Pacific ocean, the 
president deems it useless to pursue any further the attempt at an adjust- 
ment, tlie object of this present negotiation. I am therefore directed to 
state to you that the oifer of a line for the western boundary, made to you 
in my last letter, is no longer obligatory upon this government. Reserving 
then all the rights of the United States to the ancient western boundary of 
the Colony of Louisiana by the course of the Rio Bravo del Norte, I am," etc. 

13. 

To this De Onis replied, December 12, 1818. f 

"As you stated to me in your note of the 31st of October last, that the 
proposals you then made me by order of your government comprehended 
everything which the president conceived it possible within the compass of 
his powers and duty to offer for the final arrangement of the pending differ- 
ences, I endeavored in my letter of the 16th of November last to modify 
the proposals made in yours of the 3lsc of October, and approximate them 
to yours to the utmost extent of ray powers. I even expressed my earnest 
desire to conclude the negotiation, so far as to admit the removal of the 
boundary line from the Gulf of Mexico on the River Sabine, as proposed by 
you; and I only added that it should run more or less obliquely to the Mis- 
souri, thereby still keeping in view the consideration of conciliating the 
wish that your government might have of retaining such other settlement 
as might have been formed on the bank of that river, and observing, never- 
theless, that it was not to pass by New Mexico or any other provinces or 
dominions of the Crown of Spain," etc. 

14. 

Don Luis de Onis again, on the 11th of January, 1819:;|; 

"As the great difficulty which has hitherto opposed this (lesirable arrange- 
ment is tlie exact deraarkation of the line which divides or should divide 
the dominions of the Crown of Spain from the territory of the United 
States westward of the Mississippi, and as you were pleased to state to me 
in your note of the 30th of September last that the principal motive which 
induced the President to withdraw the proposals which you had made to me 
by his direction was the want of instructions authorizing me to extend the 
boundary line to the Pacific Ocean, I have the honor to inform you that His 
Majesty, although then unacquainted with the proposals made by you to me 
in your note of the 31st of October, with a view to give an eminent proof of 
his sincere and generous friendship for this republic, has been pleased to 
authorize me to settle this point and others embraced by former proposals. 
If the President should agree to your entering into an amicable agreement 
of them, and also to modify on his part the proposals you have made to me, 
I do not doubt that either by correspondence or in conference we may 
speedily attain the desired object — the termination of this interesting 
affair," etc. 

*See Annals of 15th Congress, 2d seas., ptmo 1942. 

J See Annals of 16th Congress, 2d sess., page 2102. 
See Annals of 16th Congress, 2d sess., page 2109. 



15. 

Don Luis de Onis to the Secretary of State, Jaiiuaiy 10, 1819:* 
'' I have the honor to confirm to you those which I made in my note of 
the 16th of November last, and to add thereto that His Majesty will agree 
that tlie boundary line between the two States sliall extend from the source 
of the Missouri westward to the Columbia River, and along middle thereof 
to tlie Tacitic Ocean," etc. 

16. 

John Q. Adams to Don Luis de Onis, January 29, 1819: 
"SiK — Your letter of the 16th instant has been submitted to the consid- 
eration of the President of the United States, by whose direction 1 have the 
honor of informing you that the proposal to draw the western boundary 
line between the United States and the Spanish territories on this continent 
from the source of the Missouri to the Columbia River, cannot be admitted. 
I have to add that for the purpose of an immediate arrangement of affairs 
with Spain, this Government repeats the proposal contained in my letter to 
you of the 31st of October last," etc.f 

17. 

Extract from letter of Luis de Onis to J. Q. x\dams, February 1, 1819: 

"Considering that the motive for declining to admit my pro- 
posal of extending the boundary line from the Missouri to the Columbia, 
and along that river to the Pacific, appears to be the wish of the President 
to include within the limits of the Union all the branches and rivers empty- 
ing into the said river Columbia, 1 will adapt my proposals on this point so 
as fully to satisfy the demand of the United States without losing sight of 
the essential object, namely, thai the boundary line shall, as far as possible, be 
natural, and clearly defined, and have no room for dispute to the inhabitants 
on either side. Having thus declared to you my readiness to meet the 
views of the United States in the essential point of their demand, I have 
to state to you that His Majesty is unable to agree to the admission of the Red 
River to its source as proposed by you. This river ri.ses within a few 
leagues of Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, and as I flatter myself tlie 
United States have no hostile intentions towards Spain at the moment we 
are using all our efforts to strengthen the existing friendship between the 
two nations, it must be indifferent to them to accept the Arkansas instead 
of the Red River as the boundary. This opinion is strengthened by the 
well known fact that the intermediate space between these two rivers is so 
much impregnated with nitre as scarcely to be susceptible of improvement. 

" In consid(;ration of these obvious reasons, I propose to you that draw- 
ing the boundary line from the Gulf of Mexico by the River Sabine, as laid 
down by you, it shall follow the course of that river to its source, thence 
by the ninety-fourth degree of longitude to the Red River of Nachitoches, 
and along the same to the ninety-fifth degree, and crossing it at that point 
to run by a line due north to the Arkansas and along it to its source; thence 
by a line due west till it strikes the River San Clementi or Multnomali. in 
latitude forty-one degrees, and along that river to the Pacific Ocean, the 
whole agreeably to Melish's map," etc.]; 

*Sce Annals of 16th Congress, 2d sess., page 2110. 

J See Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d sess., pages 2110 and 2111. 
See Annals of Congress, 16lh Congress, 2d sess., page 2112. 



18. 

" Project of an Article describing the Western. Boundary, Gommnnicated to Don 
Luis De Onis hy Secretary of State, February 6, 1819. 

" Article. It is agreed that the western boundary between the United 
States and the territories of Spain shall be as follows: Beginning at the 
mouth of the River Sabine, on the Gulf of Mexico; following the course of 
said river to the thirty second degree of latitude, the eastern bank and all 
the islaniis in the river to belong to the United States, and the western 
bank to Spain; tlience due north to the northernmost part of the thirty- 
third degree of north latitude, and until it strikes the Rio Roxo or Red 
River; thence following the course of said river to the northernmost point of the 
bend, hetiveen longitude 101 ayid 102 degrees; thence by the shortest line to the 
southernmost point of the bend of the River Arkansas, betiveen the same degrees 
of longitude 101 and 102; thence following the course of the River Arkan- 
sas to its source in latitude forty-one degrees north; thence following the 
same parallel of latitude forty-one degrees to the South Sea. The northern 
banks and all the islands in the said Red and Arkansas Rivers, on the said 
boundary line, to belong to the United States, and their southern banks to 
Spain, the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, 
published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818. But if 
the source of the Arkansas River should fall south or north of latitude 
forty-one degrees, then the line from the said source shall run due north or 
south, as the case may be, till it meets the said parallel of latitude, and 
thence, as aforesaid, to the South Sea. And it is further agreed that no 
Spanish settlement shall be made on any part of the said Red or Arkansas 
Rivers, nor on any of the waters flowing into the same, nor any east of the 
chain of Snow Mountains, between latitudes thirty-one and forty-one de- 
grees, inclusively; and that the navigation of said rivers shall belong ex- 
clusively to the United States forever."* 

19. 

Project of a treaty delivered by Don Luis de Onis to the Secretary of 
State, February 9th,"l819: 

•'4th. That at no time whatever there may be any dispute or 
mistake in the boundary which shall separate in future the territories of 
his Catholic Majesty and those of the United States to the westward of the 
Mississippi, the two high contracting parties have agreed to fix thera in the 
following manner: The boundary line between the two countries shall 
begin on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the River Sabine, in the sea; 
continuing north along the middle of the river to the thirty-second degree 
of latitude; thence l)y a line due north to the thirty-third degree of lati- 
tude, where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches (Red River), following 
the course of the Rio Roxo to the westward to the hundredth degree of 
longitude and thirty-three and one-fourth degree of latitude, where it 
crosses that river; thence by a line due north by the said one hundredth 
degree of longitude from London, according to Melish's map, till it enters 
the Riv(U- Arkansas; thence along the middle of the Arkansas to the forty- 
second degree of latitude; thence a line shall be drawn to the westward, 
by the same parallel of latitude, to the source of the River San Clemente, 
or Multroomah, following the course of that river to the forty -third degree 
of latitude; and thence by a line due west to the Pacific Ocean," etc.f 

*See Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d sess., page 2113. 

fSee Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d sess., pages 2114 and 2115. 



— 9 — 

20. 

Counter project of a treaty communicated by Mr. Adams to Don Luis de 
Onis, the 13th of February, 1819: 

"Art. ?>. The boundary line between the two countries, west 
of the Mississippi, sliall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the 
liiver Sabine, in the sea; continuing north along the western bank of that 
riv'er to the thirty-second degree of latitude; thence by a line due nortli to 
the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or 
Red River; thence following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the 
degree of longitude one hundred and two degrees west from London, and 
twenty-five degrees from Washington; thence crossing the said Red River 
and running thence by a line due north to the River Arkansas; thence follow- 
ing the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude 
forty-one degrees north; and thence, by the parallel of latitude, to the 
South Sea; the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United 
States, published in Philadelphia, improved to the first of January. 1818. 
But if the source of the Arkansas River should be found to fall north or 
south of latitude forty-one degrees, then the line shall run from the said 
source due south or north, as the case may be, till it meets the said parallel 
of latitude forty-one degrees; and thence along the said parallel to the 
South Sea; the Sabine and the said Red and Arkansas Rivers, and all the 
islands in the same, throughout the course thus described, to belong to the 
United States; and the western bank of the Sabine and the southern banks 
of the said Red and Arkansas Rivers, throughout the line thus described, 
to belong to Spain. And the United States*- Iter eby cede to his Catliolic 
Majesty all their rights, claims and pretentions to the territories lying west 
and south of the above described line; and his Catholic Majesty cedes to 
the said United States all his rights, claims and pretentions to any terri- 
tories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs and succes- 
sors, renounces all claims to said territories forever. 

"Art. 4. To fix this line with more precision, and to place the land- 
marks which shall designate exactly the limits of both nations, each of the 
contracting parties shall appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who shall 
meet before the termination of one year from the date" of the ratification 
of this treaty, at Nachitoches, on the Red River, and proceed to run and 
mark the said line from the mouth of the Sabine to the Red River, and 
from the Red River to the River Arkansas, and to ascertain the latitude of 
the source of the said River Arkansas in conformity to what is above 
agreed upon and stipulated; they shall make out plans and keep journals 
of their proceeding.s, and the result agreed upon by them shall be consid- 
ered as part of this treaty and shall have the same force as if it were 
inserted therein."* 

This last project or counter project of Adams, dated February 13, 1819, 
contained 15 articles; tlie 3d defining lines of boundary; 4th, p]-oviding for 
running and marking line; 5th, establishing the status of inhabitants of 
ceded territory to the United States; Gth, article of incorporation of terri- 
tory in the Union and guaranteeing to citizens equal riglits with citizens of 
the United States. (See Appendix 16th Congress, 2d session, i)ages 2119, 
2120, 2121, 2122, 2123 and 2124.) At this time Mr. De Onis being indis- 
posed, at his request Mr. Hyde de Neuville had an interview with J. Q. 
Adams, and on the 15th day of February they discussed the project of 
Mr. De Onis and the counter project of J. Q. Adams. Each article of the 

*See Appendix Annals of Congre.s3, 16th Congress, 2d sess., pages 2120 and 2121. 



— 10 — 

counter project of Adams was discussed and tlie objections to each article 
and the agreements were noted by De Neuville.* 

On the 16th day of February, 1819, the Secretary of State received from 
De Onis through hands of De Neuville the following: . . . "Art. 3. 
The Chevalier de Onis requires that the boundary between the two countries 
shall be the middle of the rivers, and that the navigation of the said rivers 
shall be common to both nations." 

Secretary of State replies: "The Secretary of State maintains that the 
United States have always intended that the property of the river should 
belong to them. He insists on this point as an essential condition," etc. 

"The Minister of Spain agrees to the one hundredth degree of longitude, 
and, to remove all difficulties, to admit the forty-second instead of the forty- 
third degree of latitude, from the Arkansas to the Pacific Ocean." 

Secretary of State: "Agreed. "f 

On the 22d day of February, 1819, the treaty was drawn up and signed 
by J. Q. Adams for the United States and Luis de Onis for Spain, and the 
3d and 4th articles of the treaty read: 

"Art. 3. The boundary line between the two counti'ies west of the Mis- 
sissippi shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the River Sabine, 
in the sea; continuing north along the western bank of that river to the 
thirty-second degree of latitude; thence by a line due north to the degree 
of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or Red River; 
then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longi- 
tude one hundred west from London and twenty-three from Washington; 
then crossing the said Red River and running thence by a line due north to 
the River Arkansas; thence following the course of the southern bank of the 
Arkansas to its source in latitude forty-two degrees north, and thence by 
that parallel of latitude to the South Sea; the whole being as laid down in 
Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to 
the first of January, 1818. But if the source of the Arkansas River shall 
be found to tall north or south of latitude forty-two degrees, then the line 
shall run from the said source due south or north, as the case may be, till it 
meets the said parallel of latitude of forty-two degrees; and thence along 
the said parallel to the South Sea; all the islands in the Sabine and the said 
Red and Arkansas Rivers throughout the course thus described to belong 
to the United States; but the use of the waters and the navigation of the 
Sabrne, to the sea, and the said rivers, Roxo and Arkansas, throughout the 
extent of said boundary, on their respective banks, shall be common to the 
respective inhabitants of both nations. The two high contracting partie.^ 
agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretentions to the 
territories described by the said line; that is to say: The United States 
hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty and renounce forever all the rights, 
claims, and pretentions to the territories lying west and south of the above 
described line, and in like manner His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said 
United States all his'rights, claims, and pretentions to any territories east 
and north of said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces 
all claim to the said territories forever. 

"Art. 4. To fix this line with more precision, and to place the land- 
marks which shall designate exactly the limits of both nations, each of the 
contracting parties shall appoint a commissioner and surveyor, who shall 
meet before the termination of one year from the date of the ratification of 
the treaty, at Nachitoches, on Red River, and pi-oceed to run and mark the 

*Seo Annals of Congress, ]6l,h Congress, 2d sess., pages 212H and 2124; al.so note. 
fSeo Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d sess., pages 212.5 and 2126. 



— 11 — 

said line from the mouth of the Sabine to Red River, and from the Rod 
River to tlie River Arkansas, and to ascertain the latitude of tlic source of the 
said River Arkansas in conformity to what is above agreed upon and stipulated, 
and the line of latitude forty-two degrees to the South Sea; they sliall make out 
plans and keep journals of their proceedings, and the results agreed upon 
by them shall be considered as part of this treaty, and shall have the same 
force as if it were inserted therein. The two governments will amicably 
agree respecting the necessary articles to be furnished to those persons, and 
also to their respective escorts, should such be deemed necessary."* 



Extract from " Treaty of Limits between the United States of America and the 
United Mexican States, concluded January 12, 1828. 

"Article I . The dividing limits of the respective bordering territories of 
the United States of America and the United Mexican .States l)eing the 
same as were agreed and fixed upon by the above mentioned treaty of 
Washington [between Spain and the United States of America], concluded 
and signed on the twenty-second day of February, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and nineteen, the two high contracting parties will proceed 
forthwith to carry into full effect the third and fourth articles of said 
treaty." 

(.Senate Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Congress, :3d session.) 

Convention betioeen the United States of America and the Republic of Texas for 
marking the Boundary Between them, concluded April 25, 1838, Ratification 
exchanged October 12, 1838, Proclaimed October 13, 1838. 
"Whereas, The treaty of limits made and concluded on the 12th day of 
January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 
eight, between the United States of America on the one part and the United 
Mexican States on the other, is binding upon the Republic of Texas, the 
same having been entered into at a time when Texas formed a part of the 
said United Mexican States. 

"And, whereas. It is deemed proper and expedient, in order to prevent 
future disputes and collisions between the United States and Texas in re- 
gard to the boiandary between the two countries as designated by said treaty, 
that a portion of the same should be run and marked without unnecessary 
delay. The president of the United States has appointed John Forsyth 
their plenipotentiary and the President of the Republic of Texas has ap- 
pointed Memucan Hunt its plenipotentiary, and the said plenipotentiaries, 
having exchanged their full powers, have agreed upon and concluded the 
following articles: 

"Article 1. Each of the contracting parties shall appoint a commissioner 
and surveyor, who shall meet before the termination of twelve months from 
the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, at New Orleans, and 
proceed to run and mai-k that portion of the said boundary which extends 
from the mouth of thii Sabine, where that river enters the Gulf of Mexico, 
to the Red River. They shall make out plans and keep journals of their 
proceedings, and the result ao;reed upon by them shall be consitiered as 
part of this convention, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted 
therein. The two governments will amicably agree respecting the neces- 
sary articles to be furnished to those persons, and also as to their respective 
escorts, should such be deemed necessary. 

*See Appendix to Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d session, pages 2130, 2131. 2132, 
2133, 2134 and 2135. 



— 12 — 

"Article 2. And it is agreed that until this line shall be marked out as 
is provided for in the foregoing article, each of the contracting parties shall 
continue to exercise jurisdiction in all the territory over which its jurisdic- 
tion has hitherto been exercised; and that the remaining jjortion of the said 
boundary line shall be run and marked at such time hereafter as may suit the con- 
venience of both the contracting parties, until which time each of the said parties 
shall exercise without interference of the other, within the territory of which the 
boundary shall not have been so ^narked and run, jurisdiction to the same extent to 
lohich it has been heretofore usually exercised. 

'Article ?,. The present convention shall be ratified and the ratifications 
shall be exchanged at Washington, within the terra of six months from the 
date hereof, or sooner if possible. 

''In witness whereof, we the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the 
same, and have hereunto affixed our respective seals. Done at Washington, 
this 25th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and thirty-eight, in the sixty-second year of the independence of the United 
States of America and in the third year of that of the Republic of Texas. 



John Forsyth. 
" Memucan Hunt.' 
(Senate Ex. Doc. 36, 41st Cong., p. 83.5.) 



L. S.] 
L. S.] 



Discoveries in the Upper Red River and JJpj^er Arkansas Regions. 

It is stated in substance by Mr. Bancroft in his History of the United 
States (pages 5V, 58), that in June, 1542, the followers of Ferdinand de Soto 
found themselves on. the banks of the Mississippi River, and determined to 
reach Mexico by land, and in July they reached the country of the Nachi- 
toches; but Red River was so swollen they could not cross, and turning up 
that stream they were pui'posely led astray by their Indian guides, and "they 
went up and down through very great woods," and reached the great buffalo 
prairies of the west, the range of the Pawnees and Comanches, on the con- 
fines of Mexico, and believed themselves 1.50 leagues west of the Mississippi 
River. That this journey was performed by over 300 men, some of whom 
wrote particular accounts of it (seep. 59 and notes); and that they returned to 
the Mississippi River in December, reaching it on the north side of Red River. 

The same historian, on page 204, Vol. Ill, states that Bineville, in March, 
1700, "explored Western Louisiana, crossed Red River, and approached 
New Mexico;" and "St. Denis, with a motley group of Canadians and 
Indians, was sent to ramble for six months in the far west that he might 
certainly find the land of Gold."* 

On page 247, Vol. Ill, Bancroft says that in 1713 "St. Dennis, after 
renewing intercourse with the Nachitoclies, again ascended Red River, and 
found his way from one Spanish post to anotherf till he reached a fortress 
in Mexico, and his enterprise was followed by his imprisonment, and even 
liberty of commerce across the wilderness was sternly refused. 

*Captain II. B. Marcy, on page 19 of Marcy's Red River of Louisiana, says of tlie 
Witcliita Mountains east of the Nortli Fork of Red River: ''There are veins of quartz, 
greenstone, and porphyry inmning tlirough tiie granite, similar to those tliat ciiaracterize tlie 
gold-bearing formation of Califoi'nia, New Mexico and elsevvliere. This fact in connection 
with our having found some small particles of gold in the detritus along the bed of Otter 
Creek may yet lead to the discovery of important auriferous deposits in these mountains. 
Among the border settlers of Texas and Arkansas an opinion has for a long time prevailed 
that gold was abundant here, and several expeditions have been organized for the purpose 
of making examinations, but the Indiims opposed their operations, and in every instance I 
believe compelled them to abandon the enteriirise and return home." 

f A point on Red River in the most northern extremity of Montague county is designated 
as "Old Spanish Fort" on Pressler's Map of Texas. 



— 13 — 

Itinerary, Diary and Computations of Leagues of a Journey of Discovery from 
this, the Province of New Mexico, to the Fort of NacJiitoches and the Province 
of the Texas. Undertaken hy Superior Orders Jointly -with Don Pedro Vial by 
ii)e, the Undersigned (^o))iniissioner for this purpose. 

Fkancisco Xavier Fkagoso. 
Tiaoit of Santa F,\ /hf -lUli of June, 1788. 

June 24. — Tliis day, all necessary preparations having boon made, and 
after having received the orders of His Ijordship the Governor of this Pro- 
vince, Don Fernando dt; la Concha, and the correspondence and dispatches 
addressed to their Lordships the Governors and the Commandant of said 
fort and the Province of the Texas, at about the eleventh hour in the morn- 
ing, 1 started from this capital, the town of Santa Fe, with the following- 
persons: Don Pedro Vial, a native of Lyons, France; myself, Francisco 
Xavier Fragoso, of the City of Mexico; Jose Maria Romero, Grogorio 
Leyva, and Juan Lusero, natives of Santa Fe, shaping my course south- 
ward, in the direction of the Pecos Village. After leaving the woodland, 
entered a sh(.)rt canyon and reached a rolling table land whore the village 
was desci'ied. This day traveled 8 leagues. 

June 25. — Started at 9 o'clock a. m.; southward, leaving a table land on 
the right and heavy timber as far as the ford called the Pecos P''ord, and 
hiUted at Bernal's. 10 leagues. 

June '2G. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; eastward; good land; reached Las 
GaUinas (the chickens) as 6 o'clock p. m. It is an habitual camping 
ground. 1 1 leagues. 

.y^i//e 27.— Started at 11 o'clock a.m.; eastward; good land; grass, fuel 
and water; halted at (J o'clock p. in. at a standing spring with Cottonwood 
trees. 8 leagues. 

June ii9. — Started at 8 o'clock a. m. ; same course; good land. There is 
on the south a low red table land, and another one hmgue distant; then a 
Sahinas (cypress) forest is seen about two leagues long. T halted without 
water at a place which 1 called San Pedro. 8 leagues. 

June 30. — Started at 8 o'clock; same course, leaving a black tableland 
on the right and on the left two low red hills an^l a very extensive water- 
less valley, which is called Santa Ana Halted at 6 o'clock p. m. 10 leagues. 

July 1. — Started at 7 o'clock a. m.; same course, leaving on the south a 
white table land and on the north some small lakes. Halted a 7 o'clock p. 
m. at the foot of a black table land which I called Santa Rosa. 12 leagues. 

July 2. — Started at 8 o'clock; same course; good land, with the same 
table land on the right, and on the left a very extensive plain. After my 
reckoning, the table land is about lu leagues and the plain about 20 leagues 
long. There is a standing spring and one cottonwood tree. 1 halted at the 
spur of the table land at 7 o'clock p. m. 12 leagues. 

July 8. — Started at o'clock a. m.; eastward course. Soon entered the 
plains, which are so extensive that nothing but the sky and plain are seen. 
Passed this day thirteen lakes. Halted at 7 o'clock p. m. at tlie head of the 
Rio Blanco (White River). 12 leagues. 

July 4. — Started at 5 o'clock; same course, keeping along said Rio Blanco, 
which is a running stream; level land; grass and fuel in abundance. Halted 
at 6 o'clock. leagues. 

July 5. — Started at 5 o'clock a. m.; same eastward course, down said 
river; good land. After traveling a short distance, struck tlie Junction of a 
river which runs from the north and is called Rio del Tule (Spanish Dagger 
River); halted at 6 o'clock p. m. at the forks. G leagues. 



— 14 — 

Jiily 6_ — Started at 9 o'clock a. m.; same course, still followino; the said 
Rio Blanco, on which I halted at 6 o'clock p. m., with fuel, grass, and water. 

6 leagues. 

July 7. — Started at 5 o'clock a. m.; same course, along the river, which 
becomes wider than gunshot distance; camped on its hank at fi o'clock, at 
" El Castor " (The Beaver). 9 leagues. 

July 8. — Started at 5 o'clock a. m.; same coarse, same river, and I camped 
in a Cottonwood grove, where the hills become lower; it was about 7 o'clock 
p. m. 10 leagues. 

July 9. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; san)e course and river, but was com- 
pelled to halt at 12 o'clock. 4 leagues. 

July 10. — Started at 9 o'clock a. m., having found a good watering place, 
as the river water is brackish; abundance of grass and fuel; same course, 
still along the river; camped at 3 o'clock p. m. 7 leagues. 

July 11. — Started at 5 o'clock a. m.; same course and down the river, 
the Cumanchis having advised me not to leave the river, which follows 
steadily that course; camped at 7 o'clock at San Diego; grass, fuel, and no 
stones. 12 leagues. 

July 12. — Started before daybreak; same river and course; land level, 
the river is wider; traveled until 8 o'clock p. m. 1.3 leagues. 

July 13. — Started at about 4 o'clock a. m.; same course and river, and we 
saw on the north of the river the range of hills which, as we were told, was 
the Juamanes. Here another river running from the north joins the Blanco. 
It has much water, and is called Rio de las Plumas (Feather River); it is 
less brackish than the Blanco. 1 camped at~about 7 o'clock p. m., on said 
river, at San Dimas, as I called the place. 12 leagues. 

July 14. — .Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; same con i^se and river; another river 
debouches, which comes from the north; it is wider. Here the rivers and 
hills become level, and another range of hills, not very high, is seen on the 
north; again another river, also running from the north, joins the Rio 
Blanco, and leaving a very extensive plain, I camped at about 6:30 p. m. 
10 leagues. 

July 15. — Started at 6 o'clock a. ni.; same coui'se and along said river; 
traveled over good land, well supplied with grass, fuel, and meat; halted at 

7 o'clock p. m., and crossed the river, which is already very wide. Tliis day 
I crossed a creek which runs from the south. 10 leagues. 

July 16. — Started at 5 o'clock a m.; on a northern course and on a very 
large Cumanchi trail, to overtake them and ascertain whether I was or was 
not on the right direction. I overtook them and camped witli them at 6 
o'clock p. m. 6 leagues. 

July 17.— Started at 7 o'clock a. m., to resume an eastern course, being 
guided by the same Cumanchi who guided Don Pedro Vial to Santa Fe, 
and he led me over very extensive plains, good lands, and on a straight 
line, with grass, fuel and standing water. I camped at 10 o'clock p. m., at 
San Antonio. 12 leagues. 

July 18. — Started a 5 o'clock a. m., southward; halted on a river run- 
ning from the north to join the Rio Blanco, and we understood to be called 
the San Marcos River. Camped at 6 o'clock p. m. 10 leagues. 

July 19. — Started at 5 o'clock a. m.; same course, over plains; good land. 
The river is very boggy; it is joined by another large river running from 
the south, called by the Cumanchis Del Ahnagre (Ochre, or Vermilion); at a 
short distance another river running from the north forms its junction, and 
I gave it the name of Rio de Dolores (River of Sorrows). After crossing 



— 15 — 

the river a plain intervenes, timbered with oaks, and is called San Jose. 
There 1 camped for the night, at 3 o'clock p. m. 8 leagues. 

July 20. — Started at 5 o'clock a. ra., course eastward; after crossing the 
river, struck a plain two or throe leagues in length, and reached the Tagua- 
yachi (Tahuayase) villages at n o'clock a. m. 4 leagues. 

July 26. — Started at 6 o'clock a. in., course southward. After crossing 
said river, struck a very fine oak timber, on good level land ; the forest is 
about 4 leagues wide; next struck a large and beautiful plain. Camped at 
tiie Santa Ana spring, at 5 o'clock. 7 leagues. 

JuJy-2l. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m, eastward, over level land; .several 
streams close to each other; good fuel and grass. I camped on a small 
stream at 6 o'clock p. m. The country this day was alternately prairie and 
woods. The stream is called San Juan. 

July 28. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m., same course, and after traveling 4 
leagues we reached a very fine forest which is called "Monte (xrande" 
(Cross Timbers), which is said to be two hundred leagues long and only 
three leagues wide; there I camped. 4^ leagues. 

July 31. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m., eastward course. When leaving the 
forest, crosse(i a small running stream (not very small either) running from 
north to south; it is said to be La Trinidad (the Trinity); thence entered an 
immense plain, and went into camp at 5 o'clock p. m., at a spring which I 
called El Benado (Deer spring). 7 leagues. 

Auijust 1 — Started at 6 o'clock a. ni., .same course over said plains, but 
was soon compelled to halt, by rain. 2 leagues. 

August 3. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m., same course. Traveled over 
heavily timbered plains, well watered; grass and fuel, but no stones. 
Plaited at 2 o'clock p. m. Crossed to-day two small running rivers. 4 
leagues. 

August 4. — Started at 7 o'clock a. ra., easterly course, over heavily tim- 
bered plains and creeks; found plum and other trees. 3 leagues. 

August 5. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.. same course, over treeless plains; 
creeks alone are timbered. No mountain or hill within sight, in any di- 
rection. 1 camped without water, at the outskirt of an oak forest a quarter 
of a league wide, but how long is not known. 1 halted at 4 o'clock p. m. 
8 leagues 

August 6. — Started at 7 o'clock a. m.. same course, over plains and good 
land; small creeks. Entered the Nachistochis forest, and halted at 6 
o'clock p. m., on a running creek. 8 leagues. 

August 7. — Started at 6 o'clock; course southward through the forest, 
the soil of which is thickly covered with brush, and on so narrow a trail 
that we sometimes lost it. There are many running streams. Camped at 
6 o'clock p. m , on a running creek. 8 leagues. 

August 8. — Started at about 9 o'clock; same course and same forest; 
passed the Ramos swamp, and camped at 6 o'clock p. m., on a running 
stream called De la Piedra de Amolar (Whetstone Creek), because some ex- 
cellent such stones are found on the bank of the stream. • 4 leagues. 

August 0. — Started at 7 o'clock; same course and same forest. Found 
to-day two very large streams, in which we saw alligators. Camped on the 
Sabine River. 4 leagues. 

August 10. — Started at 8 o'clock a. m.; eastern course and same forest. 
Found two small creeks, running from south to north; one is called Dc las 
Auiinas (The Souls), and the other San Jose. Slept in a valley timbered 



— 16 — 

with Cottonwood trees; no running water. Halted at 6 o'clock p. ra. 8 
leagues. 

August 11. — Started at 8 o'clock a. m. ; same course and same forest. 
Laud heavily timbered and rolling; there are no stones. Crossed a small 
running creek called Del Loho (Wolf Creek) and a valley called Del Carrizo 
(Cane Valley), and I halted at 6 o'clock p. m. on a creek called De la Casa 
(House Creek). 9^ leagues. 

August 12. — Started at 6 o'clok a m.; same course and same forest. At 
a distance of two leagues there are two creeks running northward, and at a 
distance of two more leagues there is a spring called De Lucero (Lucero's 
Spring), and I halted in a Nadaco village composed of eight huts. 8 
leagues. 

August 13. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; eastern co\;rse and same forest. 
I halted on a running streaiu. 2^ leagues. 

August 14. — Started at 6 o,clock a. m.; same course and same forest. 
At 12 o'clock m. halted at the rancho of a Frenchman named Atanacio. 
6 leagues. 

August 16. — Started at 6 o'clock a. ni. ; course eastward and same forest. 
I reached the house and rancho of another Frenchman called Pavlo de Ca- 
derafita, at 9 o'clock a. m. 4 leagues. 

August 19. — Started at 7 o'clock; same course and same forest; passed 
the ranches of two other Frenchmen, and I halted at 6 o'clock at the rancho 
of an Englishman. 7 leagues. 

August 20. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m. ; same course and same forest, and 
reached the fort of Nachitochis at 5 o'clock p. m. lu leagues. 

August 30. — Started from said fort at 10 o'clock a. m., shaping my course 
southward, and camped at Buena Vista at 6 o'clock p. m. Still traveled in 
the forest, but it was not so tall. 9 leagues. 

August 31. — Started at 9 o'clock; same course and same forest. Camped 
at San Jose at 1 2 o'clock. 6 leagues. 

September 1. — Started at 8 o'clock a. m.; same course and same forest. 
Crossed the Sabine River. All good land. Camped at 6 o'clock p. m., at 
^l Patron (Patron Creek). 1 leagues. 

September 2. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; westward course. The forest is 
lower; the land is good. Crossed a river called Dc Zais [probably Ayish 
Bayou]. Camped at a rancho at 6 o'clock p. m. ; it is called Atoyuquc (Ato- 
yac.) 13 leagues. 

September 3. — Started at 7 o'clock a. m. ; same course and same forest. 
Passed by a rancho called Atascoso, and at 6 o'clock p. rn. reached the pre- 
sidio (garrison) of Nacodochi. 14 leagues. 

October 24. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; westward course. Halted on Loco 
Creek, an habitual camping ground, at 3 o'clock. 4 leagues. 

October 25. — Started at 9 o'clock a. m.; same course and same forest 
Camped at 5 o'clock p. m. at Los Charcos (The Ponds). 10 leagues. 

October 26. — B^ollowed the same course in the forest; good land. Camped 
at San Pedro; at 5 o'clock p. m. crossed the Nechas River. 10 leagues. 

October 27. — Started at 7 o'clock a. m ; same course and in the forest. 
Camped at 5 o'clock p. m. on JlJl Carrizo (Caney Creek). 1 leagues. 

October 28. — Started at 9 o'clock; same course. The whole country is 
level. Camped on the Trinity River at 5 o'clock p. m. 4 leagues. 

October 29. — Started at 1 o'clock p. m. ; same course. Camped at 5 o'clock 
p. m. at La Laguna de los Nisperos (Persimmon Lake). 24^ leagues. 



— 17 — 

October 30. — Started at (i o'clock a. m.\ southward course; timber and 
prairie; good land. Camped at 1 o'clock p. ni. on the Leona. 7^- leagues. 

October 31. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m. ; same course; timber and rolling 
land. Camped at 5 o'clock at Corpus Christi. 1 leagues. 

November 1. — Started at 7 o'clock a. ra.; same course; all treeless praii-ie. 
Camped at 5 o'clock on the rivers which are called f.os Brazos dr Dios (the 
Arms of God, tlie Brazos River). 8 leagues. 

November 3. — Started at 8 o'clock a. m.; same course; good land, heavily 
timbered. Camped at 3 o'clock at Las Cruzes (the Crosses). I) leagues. 

November 4. — Started at S o'clock a. m.; same course: timber, prairie and 
hills. Halted at i o'clock p. m. on an habitual camping ground. 9 leagues. 

November 5. — Started at 8 o'clock; same course; good prairie land. 
Camped at 5 o'clock on El Arroyo del Azucar (Sugar Creek), 9 leagues. 

November 6. — Started at 7 o'clock; same course; little timber and much 
prairie. Crossed the Colorado River and camped a .5 o'clock on the Nave- 
dad. 9 leagues. 

November 8. —Started at 8 o'clock a. m.\ same course; good land. Halted 
at 10 o'clock at a place which is not an habitual camping ground. 4 leagues. 

Novem.ber 10. — Star'.ed at 6 o'clock a. m.; same course; good land. 
Halted at 12 o'clock at a place which is not an habitual camping ground. 
5 leagues. 

November 11. — Started at (i o'(;lock a. m.; same course; good land. 
Crossed the Gaudalupe River and halted at 3 o'clock p. m. at a place which 
is not an habitual camping ground. 7 leagues. 

November 12.— Followed the same course; heavy timber. Halted at 3 
o'clock p. m. on no habitual camping ground at Tjos Alamos (the Cotton- 
woods). 4 leagues. 

November 13. — Started at 6 o'clock a. m.; same course; good land. 
Camped at 6 o'clock p. m. on El Currtzo (Caney Creek). 7 leagues. 

November 16. — Started at 7 o'clock a. m.; same course; timber and good 
land. Camped at El Rancho del Reten (the Supply Rancho) at 6 o'clock p. 
m. 10 leagues. 

November 17. — Started at 9 o'clock a. ni.; same course. Stopped at the 
Ghayopines Rancho at 12 o'clock. 8 leagues. 

November 18. — Started at 8 o'clock a. m.; same cour.«:e. and reached the 
Royal Presidio ol' San .\ntotiio de Bexar at it o'clock p. m. Id leagues. 



State of Tkxas, 
GENERAL LAND OFFICE. 



( 

Austin, June 9, 1886. ) 

1 certify that th(^ foregoing is a con-ect translation of an original docu- 
ment existing in tiie Spanish archives of this office. 

X. ]i. Dkhkay, 
Spanish Clerk and Translator. 

I, W. C. Walsh, (^ommissionei- of the General Land Office of the State of 
Texas, do hereby certify that X. B. Del)ray, whose signature is subscribed 
to the foregoing certificate, is the Spanish clerk and translator of this office, 
duly qualified according to law. and that his official acts as such are entitled 
to full faith and credit. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and caused the seal of 
the General Land Office to be affixed, on the day and date last above writ- 
ten. [Seal.] W. C. Walsh, 

Commissioner. 



— 18 — 

Pt'ke^s Expedition. 

Extract from (irders tu Lieut. Z. M. Pike, l^y Gen. James Wilkinson, of 
the U. S. A. 

"St. Louis, June 24, l8o6. 
"A third object of considerable magnitude will then claim your 
consideration. It is to effect an interview and establish a good understand- 
ing witli Yanctons, Tetaus, or Comanches. . . . As your interview 
with the Comanches will probably lead you to the head branches of the 
Arkansas and Red Rivers, you may find yourself approximated to the set- 
tlements of New Mexico, and there it will be necessary you should move 
with great circumspection, to keep clear of any hunting or reconnoitering 
parties from that province, and to prevent alarm or offense; because the 
affairs of Spain and the United States appear to be on the point of amicable 
adjustment, and moreover it is the desire of the President to cultivate the 
friendship and harmonious intercourse of all the nations of the earth, and 
particularly of our near neighbors, the Spaniards. 

••In the course of your tour you are to remark particularly upon the geo- 
graphical structure, the natural history, and population of the country 
through which you may pass, taking particular care to collect and preserve 
specimens of everything curious in the mineral or botanical worlds which 
can be preserved and are portable. Let your courses be regulated by your 
compass, and your distances by your watch, to be noted in a field book; and 
I would advise you when circumstances permit to protract and lay down in 
a separate book tlie march of the day at every evening's halt. 

"The instruments which I have furnished you will enable you to ascer- 
tain the variation of the magnetic needle and the latitude with exactitude; 
and at every remarkable point I wisli you to employ your telescope in ob- 
serving the eclipses of Jupiter's satelites, having previously regulated and 
adjusted your watch by your quadrant, taking care to note with great nicety 
the periods of immersion and emersion of the eclipsed satelites. These ob- 
servations may enable us after your return by application to the appropriate 
tables, which 1 can not now furnish you, to ascertain the longitude. It is 
an object of much interest with the executive to ascertain the direction, ex- 
tent and navigation of the Arkansas and Red Rivers; as far, therefore, as 
may be compatible witli these instructions and practicable to the means you 
may command, I wish you to carry your views to those subjects, and should 
circumstances conspire to favor the enterprise, that you may detach a party 
with a few (3sage to descend the Arkansas under the orders of Lieutenant 
Wilkinson or Sergeant Ballinger. properly instructed and equipped, to take 
courses rivd distances, to remark on the soil, timber, etc., and to note the trihu- 
lari/ streaiiis. This party will, after reaching our post on the Arkansas, de- 
scend to Fort Adams and there wait farther orders; and you yourself may de- 
scend the Red River, acccornpanied by a party of the most respectable Coman- 
ches, to the post of Nachitoches, and there receive further orders. . 

'•Wishing you asafe and successful expedition, I am, sir, with much esteem 
and I'espect, your obedient servant. 



James Wilkinson. 



To Lieutenant Z. M. Pike. 



Pike's Sources of the AL's.sissij>pi. {Part III. }>i>. 107 to 109.) 

Extracts From Pike's Diary. 

J^iU| 15, ]80(). — We .'tailed from th<' landing at l^elle-Fontaine about ;3 



— 11) — 

o'clock p. m., in two boats. Our party consisted of two lieutenants, one 
surfijeon, one sergeant, two corporals, sixteen privates, and one interpreter. 

July 28. — Monday. . . . Arrived on the Osage Rivei-. 

Aiujusi 16. — . . . Came on extremely well in tlie l)arge to a FnMU'h 
hunting camp (evacuated). 

August 17. — . . . At four o'clock arrived at ten French houses on 
the east shore; . . . passed the position where M. Chouteau former! v 
had his fort, . . . whence to the village of the Grand Osage is nine 
miles across a large prairie. 

August 21 — . . . Rode to the village of Little Osage. 

August 27. — . . . Observed two immersions of Jupiter's sateliies. 

September 6. — . . . Arrived at the dividing ridge between the 
waters of the Osage and Arkansas (alias White River). 

September 1(). — . . . Struck and ]:)assed the divide between th(^ 
Grand River and the N'erdigris J-Jiver. 

September 12.— . . Encamfx'il on the main branch of Grand 

River. 

Sej)tembcr 14. — . . . On thiMuain branch of White HiviM', hitherto 
called Grand River. 

September 15. — . . . On the dividing ridge between the waters of 
the White and the Kans. 

September 22. — . . . Met a Pawnee hunter, who informed us that 
a party of 300 Spaniards had lately been as far as the Sabine; but for wluit 
purpose unknown. 

September 25. — . . . Struck a very large road, on which the 
Spanish troops returned, and on which we could yet discover the grass 
beaten down in the direction they went. . . . Arrived within about 
three miles of the village (Pawnee). . . . The Pawnees then advanced 
within a mile of us. . . . The chief . . . gave us his iiand ; his 
name was Characterish. . . . Arrived on the hill over the town. 
The chief had invited us to his lodge; . . . he gave me 
mnny particulars v>hich were interesting to us, relative to the late visit of the 
Spaniards. ... I will here attempt to give some memorani^.v of this 
EXPEDITION. ... I was fitting out for my expedition from St. Louis, 
when some of the Spanish emissaries in that country transmitted the infor- 
mation to Major Merior and the Spanish Council at that place, who im- 
mediately forwarded on the information to the then Commandant at Nacog- 
doches (Captain Sebastian Rodreriques), who forwarded it to Colonel (^or- 
deso, by whom it was transmitted to the seat of government. This infor- 
mation was personally communicated to me as an instance of the rapid 
means they possessed of ti'ansmitting the information relative to the occur- 
rences transacting on our frontiers. The (expedition was then determiiKMl 
on, and had three objects in view, viz: 

1. 7'o descend the Red River, in order if he met our expedition to intercept 
and turn us back. 

2. To expAore and examine all the internal i^arts oj the country from the fron- 
tiers of the province of Neiv Mexico to the Missouri. 

8. To visit the Tetaus, Pawnees republic, Grand Pawnees, Pawnee Ma- 
haws, and Kans. . . . Lieut. Don Facundo Malgares, the officer se- 
lected ... to command this expedition. . . . This officer 
marched from ihe province of Biscay with 100 dragoons of the regular ser- 
vice, and at Santa Fe (the place where the expedition was fitted out from) 
he was joined by 500 of the mounted militia of that province: 
the whole number of their beasts were two thousand and seventy-five. Tltey 



— 20 — 

descended the Red River 233 leagues, met the grand bands of the Tetaus; held 
councils with them, then struck off northeast and crossed the country to the 
Arkansas, where Lieut. Malgares left 240 of his men with the lame and 
tired horses, whilst he proceeded on with the rest to the Pawnee republic. 

Lieut. Malgares returned to Santa Fe the of October. 

September 28. — I held a council of the Kans and Osage and made them 
smoke the pipe of peace. . . . Made an observation on the emersion 
of one of Jupiter's satelites. 

September 29. — Held our grand council with the Pawnees; 
present not less than 400 warriors. 

October 4. — Two French traders arrived at the village 

October 7. — . . ., We marched out . . . on the same road 
we came in. 

October \5. — . . Dr. Robinson and myself left the party in order 

to search . . . for tlie Spanish trace. 

.October 18. — . . . Discovered two men in search of us; they in- 
formed us the party was encamped on the Arkansas about three- miles south 
of where we then were. This suiprised us very much, as we had no concep- 
tion of that river being so near. 

October 23. — Dr. Robinson and myself . . . ascended the river 
with an intention of searching the Spanish trace. . . . Ascended the 
river about 20 miles to a large branch on the right. ... 

October 24. — We ascended the right branch about five miles, but could 
not see any sign of the Spanish trace; this is not surprising, as the river 
bears southwest, and they no doubt kept more to the west, from the head of 
one branch to another. 

October 25. — Took an observation. 

October 27. — Delivered to Lieut. Wilkinson lettters for the general and 
our friends, with other papers, consisting of his instructions, traverse tables 
of our voyage and draught of our route to that place complete, in order that if we 
were lost and he arrived in safety we might not have made the tour wit/iotit some 
benefit to our country. He took with him in corn and meat 21 day's provis- 
ions, and all necessary tools to build canoes or cabins. Launched his canoes. 
We concluded we would separate in the morning, he to descend and we to 
ascend to the mountains. 

October 28. — . . . My party crossing the river to the north side, 
1 remained to see Lieutenant Wilkinson sail, which he did at ten 
o'clock, having one skin canoe, made of four buffalo skins and two elk 
skins; this held three men besides himself and one Osage. In his wooden 
canoe were one soldier, one Osage, and their baggage; one other soldier 
marched on sliore; . . . they appeared to sail very well. 
Arrived where our men had camped about dusk. . . . Distance 14 
miles. 

October 29. — . . . Two or three hours before night struck the 
Spanish road; and as it was snowing, halted and encamped the party at the 
first woods on the river. Distance 12 miles. 

October 30. — . . . Discovered also that the Spanish troops had 
marched the river up. . . . Distance 4 miles. 

October 'i\. — . . . Marched . . . on the Spanish road; 
made 16 miles. We observed this day a species of crystalization on 
tlie road (when the sun was high) in low places where there had been water 
settled; on tasting it found it to be salt; this gave in my mind some authen- 
ticity to tlie report of tlie prairie being covered for leagues. 



— 21 — 

Novemher 2. — . . . River turned to north by west — liills changed 
to north side. Distance 18-^ miles. 

November 9. — . . . Struck Spanish road (which liad been on the 
outside of us), ivJiich appeared to be considerably augmented, and on our arrival 
at tJie camp fuU7id it to cotusist of dC) fires, fro'rit which a reasonable conclusion 
■might be drawn that titcre were from 600 to 700 men. 

November ]■). — . . . The river begins to be entirely covered with 
woods on both sides. 

November 15. — ... At two in the afternoon I thought I could 
distinguish a mountain to our right, which appeared like a blue cloud; 
m half an hour they appeared in full view before us. When our 
party arrived on the hill they with one accord gave tJiree cheers for the Mex- 
ican Mountains: . . . discovered a fork on the south side bearing- 
south 25 degrees west, and the Spanish troops appeared to have borne up 
it; we encamped on its banks, about one mile from its confluence. 

November 10. — Spanish troops had ascended the right branch or main 
river. 

November 21. — . . . Passed two Spanish camps, within three 
miles of each other. 

Novemher 23. — . . . Came to third fork on south side. 
1 concluded to put the party in a defensible situation and ascend the North 
Fork to a high point on the blue mountain. 

November 24. — . . . Put up a breastwork five feet high. 
After giving the necessary orders for their government during my ab- 
sence, ... we marched . . . with an idea of arriving at the 
foot of the mountain. . . . Our party consisted of Dr. Robinson, 
Privates Miller and Brown. 

November 25. — Marched early with an expectation of ascending the 
mountain, but only able to camp at its base. 

November 26. — We commenced ascending; camped in a cave. 

November 27. — . . . Commenced our march up the mountain; 
arrived at the summit; found the snow middle deep. 

November 29. — " . . . Arrived at our camp. 

December 6. — Sent out three different parlies to hunt the Spanisli trace, 
but without success. 

December 9. — . . . Found the Spanish camp, . . . and from 
every observation we could make conceived they had all ascended the 
river. 

December 13. — . . . Passed a dividing ridge, . . . fell on a 
river forty yards wide, frozen over, . . . runs northeast. 
Must it not be the headwaters of the Platte? 

December 16. — From a high ridge we reconnoitered the adjacent country, 
and concluded putting the Spanish trace out of the question and to bear 
our course southwest for the head of Red River. 

December 17. — . . . Striking the left hatd fork of tlie river we 
had left, found it to be the main branch, and ascended it some distance, but 
finding it to bear too much to the north we encamped about two miles 
from it. 

December 18. — . . . Crossed the mountain which lay to the south- 
west of us; . . . arrived at a small spring; . . . struck what 
we supposed to be Red River, which here was about twenty-five yards 
wide. 

December 2 1 . — . . . Myself and two men ascended 1 2 miles. . . . 

December 22. — Marched up thirteen miles to a point of the mountain 



— 22 — 

whence we had a view at least 35 miles to where the river entered the 
mountains, it being at that place not more than ten or fifteen feet wide, and 
properly speaking only a brook. 

December 23. — . . . Arrived at . . . encampment of the 
party. 

December 31. — . . . The river turned so much to the north as 
almost induced us to believe it was the Arkansas. 

January r,. — . . . From some distant peaks i immediately recog- 
nized it to be the outlet of the Arkansas, which we had left nearly one 
month since. . . . We proceeded to our old camp which we had left 
the loth of December, and reoccupied it. 

January 13. — . . . Obtained an angle between the sun and moon, 
which I conceived the most correct way I possessed of ascertaining the 
longitude. 

Jaraoary 14. — . . . Crossed the first lidge, leaving the main branch 
of the river to north of us, and struck on the south fork. 

January 15. — . . . Passed the main ridge of what 1 term the 
Blue Mountains. 

January 27. — . . . VA^e struck on a brook which led west, which 
I followed down, and shortly came to a small run, running west, which we 
hailed with fervency as the waters of Red River. 

January 30. — We marched hard and arrived in the evening on the banks 
(then supposed Red River) of the Rio del Norte. 

February 16. — [This entry recites visit at his camp of a Spanish dragoon 
and Indian.] 

February 26. — . . . Two Frenchmen arrived. . . . They 
informed me that His Excellency Governor Allen Coster . . . had 
detached an officer with 50 di-agoons to come out and protect me. Shortly 
after the party came in sight, . . . 50 dragoons and 50 mounted 
militia of the Province. 

After breakfast the commanding officer addressed me as follows: "Sir, 
the Governor of New Mexico, being informed you had missed your route, 
ordered me to offer you, in his name, mules, horses, money, or whatever 
you may stand in need of, to conduct you to the head of Red River; as 
from Santa Fe to where it is sometimes navigable is eiglit days journey, 
and we have guides and routes of the traders to conduct us." " What! 
said I (interrupting him), is not this Red River? " '• No, Sir! the Rio del 
Norte.''' . . . He now added that lie had provided one hundred mules 
and horses to take in my part of the baggage, and how anxious his Excel- 
lency was to see me. . . . T stated to him . . . my orders 
would not justify my entering into Spanish territory. He urged still 
further. ... 1 was induced to consent to the measure by my con- 
viction that the officer had positive orders to bring me in. . . . 

February 28. — . . . One of the Frenchmen informed me that the 
expedition lohich had been at the Pawnees liad descended the Red River U32 
leagues, and from thence crossed lo the Pawnees expressly in search of my party. 
This was afterwards confirmed by the gentlemen who commanded the 
troops. 

March ?).— . . . Prepared for entering the capital, which we 
came in sight of in the evening. It is situated along the banks of a small 
creek which comes from the mountains and runs west to the Rio del Norte. 
The length of the capital, on the creek, may be estimated at one mile; it is 
but tiiree streets in width. . , . The supposed population is 1500 
souls. 



— 23 — 

March 6. — Marched down the Rio del Norte. ... On our arrival 
at the house of the father, etc., . . . Father Hubi displayed a lib- 
erality of opinion and a fund of knowledge which astonished me. He 
showed me u statistical table on tv/iich he had iv regular manner taken the whole 
Province of New Mexico, by villages, beginning at Taos on the northwest and 
ending with Valencia on the south, and giving their latitude, longitude and pop- 
ulation, ivhether natives or Spaniards, civilized or barbarous, Christian or pagan, 
nianbers, name of the nation, when converted, how governed, military force, clergy, 
salary, etc., etc.; in .short, a complete geographical, statistical and historical sketch 
of the province. . . . (See the Sources of the Mississippi, Pike's Expe- 
dition, pages 111 to 221.) 



Lieulrnant Wilkinso7ts Report of his Passage doivn the Arkansas. 

Kxfract: On the l7th (October, 1806), . . . Lieutenant Pike 
having determined that I should descend the Arkansas, we cut down a 
small green cottonwood, and with much labor split out a canoes, which be- 
ing insufficient, we formed a second of buffalo and elk skins. 

The weather became extremely cold on the 27th ... In the 
morning the river was almost choked with drifting ice. ... I took 
leave of Mr. Pike, who marched up the river at the moment 1 embarked 
on board my newly constructed canoe. . . . We had not proceeded 
more than one hundred yards when my boats grounded and the men were 
obliged to drag them through sand and ice five miles to a copse of woods 
on the southwestern bank. ... I here hauled up my canoe, formed a 
kind of cabin of it, and wrapi)ed myself up in my buffalo robe, disheart- 
ened; ... in the morning the river was so full of ice aS to prevent 
all possibility of proceeding. ... On the IJOth the river was frozen 
up. ... 

On the 31st of October, after having thrown away all my clothing and 
provisions, except half a dozen tin cups of corn for each man, I slung my 
rifle on my shoulder, and with buffalo robe at my back and circumferentor 
in my hand I recommenced my march. . . . On the 1st, 2d and 3d 
of November I marched over high and barren hills of sand, and at the 
close of each day passed strongl}^ impregnated salines and perceived the 
shores of tJie river to be completely frosted with nitre. The face of the country 
T descended looked more desolate than above, the eye being scarcely able 
to discern a tree. . . . On the 4th we experienced a heavy rain, but 
hunger and cold pressed me forward. After marching ten miles I reached 
a small tree, where 1 remained in a continued rain for two days, at the ex- 
piration of which time having exhausted my fuel, 1 had again to push off, 
and formed my camp at the mouth of a l)old running stream, 
whose northern bank was skirted by a chain of lofty ridges. 

On the 8th . . . T began my march early. ... I saw more 
than nine thousand buffaloes during the day's march. 

On the 10th, . . . after a severe day's march J encamped on the 
bank of a large creek, and discovered a species of wood differing from the 
cotton tree. ... I was just entering on the hunting ground of the 
Osages. 

On the 12th . . . our marches lay through rich bottoms. . . . 

On the 15th . . . discovering timber sufficiently large to form 
canoes, I felled a couple of trees and commenced splitting out. 

(hi the 25th I again attempted the navigation of tlie river. 

Tlie following day I passed the Negracka, at whose mouth commence the 



— 24 — 

craggy cliffs which line a great part of the shores of the Arkansas. 
(Appendix to Part TI of Sources of the Mississippi, pages 25 to 27.) 



Extract — Letter of Z. M. Pike to General Wilkin.wn. 

Natchitoches, 5th July, 1807. 
Dear General: 

But the general will please to recollect that my journals 
were saved at Santa Fe, which were continued and are entire to this post; a 
fortunate circumstance, of the doctor's having copied my courses and dis- 
tances through all the route (except an excursion we made to the sources 
of the river Platte) unto the Spanish territories, preserved them, which will 
enable me to exhibit a correct chart of the route. . . . (Appendix to 
Part III of Sources of the Mississippi, page 59.) 



What the North Fork of Red River was called prior to the date when the 1 00^/? 
meridian tvas located west of the forks of Red River {by Daniel G. Major, of 
the U. S. Astronomical Corps, in the Spring o/1859.) 

Capt. R. B. Marcy, in his report of his exploration of a road from Fort 
Smith to Santa Fe, in 1S49, used this language, on page 217: 

"About thirty miles north of our camp there is a sharp mound visible 
from the hills about here, and Beaver [his Indian guide] tells me that di- 
rectly at the foot of this mound runs the Big Wichita, one of the principal 
tributaries to Red River, and that thirty miles in northwest course from 
that mound the Red River forks; one branch coming in from the west ?'s- 
called Kecheaquehono, or 'Prairie Dog Town River,' from the circumstance 
of there being a round mound upon the stream which has a prairie dog 
town on top of it. This branch I'ises in the Llano Estacado. The other or 
northern branch is the principal stream, which rises in the Salt Plains near the 
head of Dry River." 

What R. B. Marcy called the North Fork of Red River before his survey 
of the South Fork: 

"We traveled in a westerly direction about eight miles when 
we turned north toward two very prominent peaks of the Wichita Moun- 
tains, and continued in this course until we arrived upon an elevated spot in 
the prairie, where we suddenly came in sight of Red River directly before 
us. Since we had last seen the river it had changed its course almost at 
right angles, and here runs nearly north and south, passing through the 
chain of mountains in front of us. We continued on for four miles further 
when we reached a fine bold running creek of good water, which we were 
rejoiced to see, as we had found no drinkable water during the day. We 
encamped about four miles above its confluence with Red River. This 
stream, which I called Otter Creek (as those animals are abundant here) 
rises in the Wichita Mountains and runs a course south 25 deg»'ees west." 
(Red River of La., by Marcy, pp. 18 and 14.) 

" The direction of this mountain chain is about south 60 degrees west, 
and from five to fifteen miles in breath. Its length we are not yet able to 
determine. Red River, which passes directly through the wastern extremity of 
the chain, is different in character at the mouth of Otter Creek from what it 
is below the function of the Kechewpiehono. There it is only one hundred 
and twenty yards wide; the banks of red clay are from three to eight feet 
liigh, the water extending entirely across the bed, and at this time (a high 



— 25 — 

stage) about six feet deep in the channel with a rapid current of four miles 
per hour, highly charged with a dull red sedimentary matter and slightly 
brackish to the taste." (Id., pp. 15, — .) 

''May 28. — Capt. McClellan has by observations upon lunar distances de- 
termined the longitude of our last camp upon the creek to be 1 00 degrees 
45 seconds, which is but a short distance from the point where the line 
dividing the Choctaw Territory from the State of Texas crosses Red River. 
The point where this line intersects Otter Creek is marked upon a large elm 
tree standing near the bank, and will be found about four miles from the 
mouch of the creek, upon the south side, with longitude (100 do^grees 45 
seconds) and latitude (34 degrees 34 minutes 6 seconds) distinctly marked 
upon it." (Id., p. 18.) 

''May 30. — Capt. McClellan returned this morning, having traced the 
mei'idian of the 100th degree of west longitude to where it strikes Red 
River. This point he ascertained to be about six miles below the junction 
of the two prmcipal branches, and three-fourths of a mile below a small 
creek which puts in from the north upon the left bank, near where the 
river bends from almost due west to north. At this point a Cottonwood tree 
standing fifty feet from the water upon the summit of a sand hill is blazed 
upon four sides, facing north, south, east and west, and upon these faces 
will be found the following inscriptions: Upon the north side, "Texas, 100 
degrees longitude;" upon the south side, "Choctaw Nation, 100 degrees 
longitude;" upon the east side, "Meridian of 100 degrees. May 29, 1852;" 
and upon the west side, Capt. McClellan marked my name with date. At 
the base of the sand hill will be found four Cottonwood trees, upon one of 
which is marked "Texas," and upon another will be found inscribed "20 
miles from Otter Creek." (Id., pp. 19 and 20.) 

June 1. — Capt. R. B. Marcy speaks of passing the base of Mt. Webster, 
named by Capt. McClellan, and ascertained by barometer to be 780 feet 
high above the base, and says: "Taking an old Comanche trail this morn- 
ing I followed it to a narrow defile in the mountains which led me up 
through a very tortuous rocky gorge where the well worn path indicated 
that it had been traveled for many years. . . . After crossing the 
mountains we descended upon the south side where we found the river flow- 
ing directly at the base, and after ascending it about two miles arrived at a 
point where it again divided into two nearly equal branches. The water in 
the south branch, which I have called Salt Fork, is bitter and unpalatable. 
The north branch, which I propose to ascend, is near the junction 
105 feet wide and three feet deep, with a very rapid current." 
(Id., p. 21.) 

June 2. — We, . . . taking a course nearly due west, emerged from 
the mountains out into the high level prairie, where we found neither wood 
nor water until we reached our present position about half a mile from Red 
River. . . . The latitude at this point is 35 degrees 3 minutes; longi- 
tude 100 degrees 12 minutes. (Id., page 22.*) 

Capt. Marcy first reaches the South Fork and recognizes its name as 
KecheaqueJiono. 

"June 27. — . . . After traveling fourteen miles we reached the 
valley of the principal branch of the river (South Fork). It was here nine 
hundred yards wide, flowing over a sandy bed, with but little water in the 
channel, and is fortified on each side by rugged hills and deep gullies, over 
which I think it will be impossible to take our train. The soil throughout 

♦See also pages 23, 25, 29, 34, 35, for instances of Captain Marcy's habit of calling the 
north branch Red River. 



— 26 — 

this section is a light ferruginous clay, with no timber except a few hack 
berry and cottonwood trees upon the banks of the streams. There is but 
little watter either in the river or m the creeks, and in a dry season I doubt 
if there would be any found here. Our route to-day has continued to lead 
us through dog towns, and it is probable that the fact of their being so 
abundant here has suggested the name which the Comanches have applied to 
to this branch of Red River, of Kecheaquehono, or Prairie Dog Town River." 
(Id. 49.) 



List of "Tributaries of Red River," given in J. DeCordova's Immigrant 
and Traveler's Guide Book, published in 1856, page 82: 

Sulphur Fork, Since Creek, Sandy Creek, 

Big Bayou, Bois d'Arc, Clear Creek, 

Red Bayou, Jennett's Creek, Fish Creek. 

Mud Creek, Sandy's Creek, Saline Creek, 

Mill Creek, Caney Creek, Coffee Creek, 

Pecan Bayou, Brushy Creek, Belknap Creek, 

Bason Creek, Choctaw Bayou, Little Wichita, 

Little Pine Creek, Mill Creek, Big Wichita, 

Lower^Pine Creek, Iron Ore Creek, Pease River, 

Upper Pine Creek, Shawnee Creek, Wanderer's Creek, 

Sander's Creek, Little Mineral Creek, Prairie Dog River, 

Clear Lake, Big Mineral Creek. Reed's Creek. 

Extract from list of all tlie streams in Texas, and where they empty: 

Plum Creek , Leon River 

Prennett's Creek Caddo Lake 

Pleasant Run Creek Trinity River 

Pra irie Dog River Red River 

(Id., page 98.) 



Extract from official letter of R. S. Neighbors, Indian Agent of L^nited 
States, to General Twiggs, July 17, 185V: 

"The members of the above named (Texas Indians) tribes not on the re- 
serves in Texas are east of Red River in the Chichasaw and Chocktaw 
country." (See Report of Secretary of Interior, Message and Documents, 
President of United States, 1857-8, page 553.) 



Extract from official letter of Elias Rector, Superintendent Indian Affairs, 
reporting personal survey by him of the Indian Territory: 

" To the south of the mountains two streams flow off to Red River — 
Otter Creek and Cache Creek — the former at the western extremity and the 
latter at the eastern extremity of the mountains." (Part I., Message and 
Documents 1859-60, Report Secretaxy Interior, Doc. 148, pages 673, 674.) 



Extract from letter of Gov. E. M. Pease to John M. SwLsher, in "Greer 
County Investigated," pages 13 and 14: 

"It (the North Fork of Red River) was always known to travelers and 
in our liistory as "Red River," and was never called by any other name 



— 27 — 

until Captain Marcy, after his discovery of the Prairie Dog Town fork, 
1852, designated it as the "North Fork," upon his map. . . . That 
the North Fork was well known to travelers as ^- Red River '" at the time of 
this treaty (of 1819), and long before, is proved by the fact that the old 
Spanish road from Louisiana to Santa Fe followed up this fork as " Red 
River," a short distance north of it, and crossed the Canadian River near 
the point where the two approach each other nearest. It is asserted by 
those who favor the claim of the United States, that the Prairie Dog Town 
fork is the largest and longest fork of Red River, and is the main or prin- 
cipal stream, and must therefore be considered as the Red River named in 
the treaty. They also claim that the South fork is larger at the point of 
intersection with the one-hundredth meridian of longitude than the North 
fork is at the point where it intersects said meridian. This last may well 
be, for it will be seen from an inspection of the map of the Indian Terri- 
tory, published by the General Land Office of the United States, on which 
both forks are meandered from their confluence to said one-hundredth me- 
ridian, that the North fork has a course nearly if not more than three times 
the distance from their confluence to said meridian that the South fork 
has . . . All the information 1 have been able to obtain from per- 
sons who have often visited and crossed both branches at many different 
points and at different seasons of the year tends to prove that the North 
fork has more and permanent tributaries and furnishes much more water to 
the river below than the South fork. 

" In answer to all these claims it is sufficient to state that the treaty says 
nothing about the main or principal stream being intended, but designates 
the Red River as laid down on Melish's map, without any qualification 
whatever, and this map places all the upper forks of Red River within the 
limits of Texas. ... E. M. Pease." 



Extracts from "Description of the New Counties of Texas, by H. Wicke- 
land," in Texas Almanac, 1859-60: 

" WICHITA AND WILBARGER COUNTIES. 

" These counties are located on the south bank of Red River and Prairie 
Dog Town River, the former separating them from the Indian Territory. 
Within the limits of Wilbarger county four miles above the 
northwest corner of Wichita county is the junction of Pease and Red Riv- 
ers, and eight miles northwest of said corner is the confluence of the latter 
and the Kecheaquehono or Prairie Dog Town River. The bed of Red River 
at this point is about 500, that of the other 800 yards wide, but Red River 
furnishes the most water and is always running, when Prairie Dog River is 
frequently dry during the summer. 

"A most magnificent view presents itself at sunrise to a person standing 
on the precipitous hills west of the mouth of the Kecheaquehono. The 
Wichita Mountains rise in large dark blue masses fi'om the apparently un- 
limited carpet of bright buffalo and mesquite grasses. By the dark foliage 
of the timber you can follow the course of the tortuous streams and copy a 
map of the country from the original plat. The mountains appear not very 
distant, and you propose a short ride; still from your high stand at the 
mouth of the Kecheaquehono you will find it fully twenty miles to the 
nearest mountains. 



— 28 — 

"THE PANHANDLE OF TEXAS, 

as nearly everybody knows, is that portion of the State north of the Ke- 
cheaquehono or Prairie Dog Town River, and between Red River and the 
100th meridian on the east and the 103d meridian, the boundary of New 
Mexico, on the west. . . . The southeastern section is decidedly the 
most fertile, being watered entirely by Red River and its branches, and 
forms a basin of about 6000 square miles from 800 to 1000 feet lower than 
the plain west of it. Red River proper (sometimes called North Fork), the 
Salt Pork, Prairie Dog Town River, and their upper tributaries, have their 
sources in deep ravines of the eastern border of the Llano Estacado . . . 
Red River flows in an easterly course until it encounters the Wichita 
Mountains; thence it turns south and receives the Salt Fork; 
having wound its way around the mountains, and having its waters in- 
creased by those of the Kecheaquehono and Pease Rivers, and it resumes its 
eastern course." (Texas Almanac, pages 174, 178 and 179.) 



DEPOSITIONS 



KELATING TO THE 



GREER COUNTY BOUNDARY. 



DEPOSITION OF CAPTAIN R. B. MARCY. 

As the interrogatories that have been submitted to me involve 
so wide a scope that it would require much time and labor to an- 
swer them in detail, and as the answers to most of them are 
more fully set forth in my report of the exploration of the Red 
River in 1852, than I could do at this time, it has occurred to me 
that a narrative of facts and opinions connected with the special 
subjects before the Commission might be more satisfactory than 
any other course. 

If this meets the approbation of the gentlemen of the Joint 
Commission, I remark, first, that, in 1849, I was ordered to escort 
emigrants from Fort Smith, Ark., to Santa Fe, N. M., en route 
to California; and, on the 4th of April, left Fort Smith with 
some 500 emigrants, following up the Canadian river for about 
200 miles, through a timbered section, when we emerged into 
the plains. Upon the elevated ridge, dividing the waters of the 
Canadian and the Wa^ita rivers; and we continued upon this 
divide, passing the head waters of the latter near the Antelope 
hills, and thence, upon the continuation of the divide of the Red 
and Canadian rirers, for about 300 miles, over a very smooth 
prairie, and our track seldom running out of sight of the Cana- 
dian driver, but a much greater distance from the Red River. 
And, I here remark, that the ground upon both sides of this 
divide was so cut up by ravines and washes that it would have 
been difficult to have taken our wagons over any other tack ex- 
cept directly upon the divide. 

At length, however, the Canadian turned so mucli out of our 
course, that we left it and struck a straight course for the Pecos 
river, and, crossing at Autine Chico, we found a wagon road 
that lead us to Santa Fe, N. M., 120 miles from the point of our 
departure at Fort Smith. 

Finding here that there was no direct wagon road to Califor- 



— 30 — 

nia, the emigrants were obliged to descend the Rio del Norte 300 
miles to reach the Gila route, the only one then traveled. I ac- 
companied them to where they struck this route, then left them 
and returned to the east at Dona Ana, taking my party of sol- 
diers directly back to Fort Smith, via the head waters of the Col- 
orado, Brazos and Trinity rivers, making a most excellent wagon 
trail, 901 miles in length, which was followed for several years 
afterwards by California emigrants. 

In 1851, I was ordered to establish a military post as far out 
on the south side of the Canadian river as requisites for a garri- 
son could be found; but I advised placing this post on the Wash- 
ita river, which was alluded to, and I established it near that 
stream, and named it Fort Arbuckle. 

The Washita was here about seventy-five yards wide, a deep 
and rapid stream, furnishing a good portion of water to Red 
river. It rises near the Antelope hills, within about five miles 
of the Canadian river, and enters Red River, near Preston, 
Texas. 

The detailed account of my exploration of Red River, with 
descriptions of the country through which it flows, will be found 
in my report, which is before the Commission, and to which I 
beg leave to refer. 

As the time that has elapsed since I made that exploration (33 
years) is so great, many of the facts and events connected there- 
with have passed from my memory; but some matters relative 
to the objects for which this Commission was convened, as I 
understand, may not be found in the report. 

I have this morning, for the first time, seen a copy of that por- 
tion of Melish's map of the United States, embracing the part of 
the Red River country which the Commission has under consid- 
eration at this time, which is authenticated by the signature of 
the Secretary of State of the United States. 

Upon this map, only one large fork of Red River is delineated, 
with one more northerly small affluent, which is not named, but 
may have been intended for the Washita river or Cache creek. 

But none of the important southern tributaries, such as the 
Big Witchita, Pease river and the Prairie Dog Town river are 
delineated thereon, unless the stream marked as the "Rio-San- 
Saba" is designed for the Prairie Dog Town branch; and, as the 
real Rio-San-Saba of Texas is 500 miles, 'or thereabouts, distant 
from this locality, it does not seem improbable that, if the maker 
of the map had any vague conception of the existence of such 
a stream as the Prairie Down Town river, he might have in- 
tended this as such. It certainly was, as far as the section of 
the map shows it, nearly in the direction of that branch of Red 
River, and is put down as rising near the eastern border of the 
Staked Plain; but the small section of the map does not show 
where it runs. 

I regarded the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main Red 
River, for the reason that its bed was much wider than that of 
the North Fork, although the water only covered a small portion 
of its bed, and as the sandy earth absorbed a good deal of 
the water after it debouched from the canyon through which 
it flows, it may not contribute any more water to tbe lower river 
than the north fork. 



— 31 — 

The Prairie Dog Town branch and the North Fork of Red 
River, from their confluences to their sources, are of about equal 
length — the former being ISO miles, and the Later 177 miles in 
length. 

For reasons, which I will presently state, I have been unable 
to resist the force of my own convictions, that the branch of Red 
River that I called the North Fork of that stream was what is 
designated upon Melish's map as "Rio Rojo." 

I doubt if the Prairie Dog Town River was ever known to civi- 
lized men prior to my exploration in 1852; and, if it was ever 
mapped before then, I am not aware of it. 

The character of the countiy through which this stream fl.ows 
is such that travelers would not have been likely to pass over it 
when there was a much more favorable route north of the North 
Fork. 

The water in the Prairie Dog Town Branch, from its conflu- 
ence with the North Fork to within two miles of its head spring 
(about 100 miles), I found so bitter and unpalatable that many of 
the men became sick from drinking it. But one pool of fresh 
water was found throughout the entire distance, and the In- 
dians told me they never went up this stream with their families 
if it could be avoided, for the reason that the nauseous water 
frequently proved fatal to their children. Hence, it is not sur- 
prising that but little, if anything, should have been known of 
this repulsive region before my exploration in 1852, And this 
probably accounts for the entire absence of most of its southern 
branches upon Melish's map. 

It is very certain that the "Prairie Dog Town river" was 
never delineated upon any of our maps, or designated by any 
Spanish, French or English name, as were most of the other 
streams in that country, and it was only known to the Indians 
and prossibly to some Mexican traders as the " Ke-che-ah-que- 
ho-no," a Comanche appellation, the signification of which the 
Delawares informed me was " Prairie Dog Town river." I was 
informed in New Mexico that the Mexicans were the only semi- 
civilized people who, for many years, ventured into the Coman- 
che and Kioway country, and they only went there for traffic, 
transporting thei'' merchandise in ox-carts from Santa Fe, along 
the identical track which I followed in escorting California emi- 
grants, from Arkansas, in 1849, where, as I said before, we 
found the greater part of the way a perfectly smooth prairie sur- 
face upon a high divide, admirably adapted to wagon travel, 
with abundance of good wood, water and grass, for camping 
purposes, and upon this route deep Mexican cart tracks, made 
when the ground was soft many years previous, were often 
observed, showing that the' route had been traveled for a long 
time, but no such tracks, roads or trails were seen within the 
valley of Prairie Dog Town river, and no evidences of Indians 
having frequented that section were noticed there. As before 
stated, owing to the absence of good water, the sandy character 
of the soil, along tliis river, and the formidable obstruction pre- 
sented by the elevated and wide spur of the Staked Plains, and 
the extensive belt of gypsum crossing this route, the Mexicans 
would never have attempted to traverse it with their carts in 



— 33 — 

their trading expeditions from Santa Fe to Nacogdoches, es- 
pecially when there was so good a route a little further north, 
possessing all the requirements for prairie traveling. 

The Rio Rojo, or Roxo. upon Melish's map, is almost entirely 
south and west of the Wichita mountains, but in close prox- 
imity to them — which is in accord with my determination of the 
position of the North Fork, while there are no mountains upon 
the Prairie Dog Town Branch. 

The head of the Rio Roxo, upon Melish's map, is put down as 
in latitude 37°, while, upon my map, the true latitude is 35^°, 
while the Prairie Dog Town river rises in about 34^°— so that if 
his Rio Roxo was intended to represent the " Prairie Dog Town 
river," it would be 2^° of latitude too far north. 

Owing to the imperfection of our instruments for the determi- 
nation of longitudes, we did not place implicit reliance in the 
accuracy of our conclusions regarding the 100° of longitude, al- 
though a series of observations upon lunar distances were taken. 
But as Capt. McClellan was unable to procure a chronometer 
from the engineer department at Washington, he was obliged to 
substitute therefor a pocket lever watch — which probably ac- 
counts for the error in the determination of the longitude at the 
100° meridian. But the latitudes given upon my map were the 
results of from twelve to fifteen observations of Polaris for the 
determination of each position, and are believed to be correct. 

I passed over the traders' overlaud route from the Missouri 
river to Santa Fe first in 1857, striking the Arkansas river near 
Fort Lorned, about seventy-five miles below Fort Dodge. The 
road I traveled up the Arkansas keeps altogether upon the north 
bank of the river, and with the exception of ten miles in the 
river bottom. It continues for several miles to Pueblo, where it 
turns to the south and traverses the mountains through the 
Raton Pass; thence to Las Vegas and Santa Fe. 

This is one of the traders' routes from the Missouri river and 
Independence, Missouri, which for many years was the eastern 
terminus of their route. This was a broad, smooth, natural 
road, and many large trains of merchandise passed over it an- 
nually. 

Another road called the Cimaron route was sometimes 
traveled by the traders, which only followed up the Arkansas a 
short distance above Fort Dodge, where it crossed, and leaving 
the river passed entirely around the mountains uniting with the 
Raton Mountain road on the southwest side of the mountains. 

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad runs up the 
Arkansas river upon the old Raton Mountain track to the base 
of the mountains near Fort Lyon, then turns more south pass- 
ing over a spur of the Raton chain. 

A great deal of the trade with Northern Mexico for very many 
years passed from Independence over these roads, extending as 
far south as Chihuahua, and the Spanish governor of New 
Mexico levied toll upon all tliat passed down from Santa Fe. 

When I visited Santa Fe first in 1840 the trade from the Mis- 
souri river over the traders' route from Independence to Santa 
Fe and Northern Mexico was, and for many years previous had 
been, in successful prosecution, and, as I understood afterwards. 



— 33 — 

it continued to Chihuahua until this trade was in a measure 
transferred to San Antonio, Texas. 

It is true that wliat appears in late maps as the Elm Fork of 
Red River, and flowing into the North Fork, was named by me 
" Salt Fork " and so designated in my map and the stream called 
" Salt Fork " and flowing into the South Fork of Red River was 
named by me Cypress creek and so styled in my map. 

Respectfully submitted, R. "R- Marcy. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcv this 3Cth 
[L. s.] day of February, A. D. 1886. 

I. LOVENBERG, 

Notary Public for Galveston Co., Texas. 

Here the Texas Commission ceased to inquire, and in answer 
to questions propounded by the Commission of the United States 
witness state? as follows, to-wit : 

I do not know what means Melish had for delineating the 
course of Upper Red River upon his map, but think it was for 
the most part compiled from hearsay, and it is possible that the 
upper courses of some other streams may have been thought to 
flow into Red River. Respectfully submitted, 

R. B. Marcy. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy this 2Gth 
[l. s.] day of February, A. D. 1886. 

I. LoVENBERG, 

Notary Public for Galveston Co., Texas. 
II. 
deposition op hugh f. young. 

The State of Texas, ) 
County of Bexar. ) Before me, I. H. French, a notary 
public in and -for Bexar county, Texas, on this, fourth 
day of June, A. D. 1886, personally came Hugh F. Young, to me 
well known, who upon being duly sworn, on his oath states that 
he has caused to be written out on this page, and ihe seven fol- 
lowing pages, (duly numbered from one to eight) his answers to 
certain direct interrogatories, propounded by the " United States 
Joint Commission on Boundary," copy of which is hereto 
attached, and true answers made to said interrogatories, as fol- 
lowing, to-wit : To first direct interrogatory he answers : I 
was born in Augusta county, Virginia, November third, 1808 ; 
emigrated to Texas and settled in Red River county in August, 
184:1, and have resided in the state ever since. On April 31, 
1846, I was commissioned by the Governor of Texas, colonel of 
the First Regiment, First Brigade, First Division of state troops. 
In 1848, when the office of colonel of the First Regiment became 
elective, I was elected to the position, which I held till Decem- 
ber, 1852, when I removed from Red River to Grayson county. 
I was elected chief justice of Red River county in August, 1848, 
again in 1850, and held the office till my removal from the 
county. 

In 1853 I was elected chief justice of Grayson county, and held 



— 34 — 

the office one term, from that time till the war being busily 
engrossed in farming and stockraising in Grayson county, from 
which the troubled state of affairs then, in 1^63, induced me to 
move my family to San Antonio, Bexar county, Texas, which 
has since been my residence. 

In 1859 I was commissioned by Governor Runnels a brigadier 
general and assigned to Seventeenth Brigade, state troops, 
enrolled in Grayson and Collin counties ; was elected to same 
position in 1860, and held it until 18(33. 

I held the office of mayor of Sherman for the year 1861. 

In San Antonio I was engaged a few years in the business of 
wholesale grocer ; from 1869 to the present time have been senior 
member of the firm of H. F. & W. H. Young, conducting a 
business styled the " West Texas Law and Land Office." 

To the second direct interrogatory he answers : I am very 
well acquainted with the eastern border and boundary of Texas, 
and know "Greer county." In emigrating to Texas I came by 
boat from New Orleans, up Red River to Fulton, Arkansas, 
therce overland to Clarksville, Red River county, Texas. In 
the spring of 1843, I was mustered into the command of Colonel 
Jacob Snively, which was organized for the purpose of inter- 
cepting Mexican trains (a state of war then existing between 
Mexico and the Republic of Texas) which were carrying on the 
commerce between Santa Fe and St. Louis. The place of 
rendevouz for Snively's command was fixed at "Old George- 
town," six miles south of " Red River," in the northwestern part 
what is now Grayson county ; I traveled from Clarksville to the 
rendevouz on horseback, traversing the counties of Lamar, 
Fannin and Grayson, 110 miles. Here the command fully 
t-rganized. A special band or company of spies was selected 
from the main body, consisting of twelve men, being for the 
most part men who had either resided upon upper " Red River," 
or were familiar with it. But I remember we chiefly relied upon 
James O. Rice, who was appointed guide for the spy company. 
He was an intelligent, brave and reliable man, and was a resi- 
dent of Texas prior to 1819, and lived, scouted and hunted all 
along upper "Red River," and had been engaged in numerous 
engagements with Indians in that section. He was also familiar 
with the names and languagees of both Indians and Mexicans, 
and knew the names of all streams and marked localities in that 
section. There were a number of other men in the command 
who had lived in Texas prior to 1819, and were familiar with the 
facts of history and with the country we were to traverse 
Colonel Snively instituted the most rigid discipline, and commu- 
nicated to his command the particular instructions by which the 
expedition was to be governed. In these was particularly set 
out that in no event were we to go beyond the limits of Texas, 
as defined between the United States and Spain in 1819, and this 
was specially impressed upon our guide. I may also state that 
from the beginning to the end of the expedition I was a mess- 
mate of Colonel Snively and kept a daily journal, which I pre- 
served until about twenty years ago, when it was unfortunately 
destroyed by fire. 

The expedition started April 31, 1843, and as instructed pur- 



— 35 — 

sued a route leading u^ the south side of " Red River," and as 
near thereto as convenient for travel, passing the counties (as 
now laid out) of Cooke, Montague, Clay, Wichita and Wil- 
barger, thus far having crossed Big and Little Wichita and 
Pease rivers, to the mouth of " Prairie Dog Town river," cross- 
ing which, leaving main "'Red River" on our right, we pursued 
our course, about northwest, -still as near said river as conve- 
nient, for a distance of fifty or sixty miles, crossing also in the 
interval what our guide and spies called " Salt River." Having 
reached a convenient crossing of main "Red River," Colonel 
Snively was assured by our guide and others that we must now 
have arrived at the one hundredth parallel of longitude. We 
crossed '"Red River," whence the expedition advanced to the 
point where tlie Santa Fe trail crossed the Arkansas river, 
which we all held was still within the limits of Texas, crossing 
the False Washata, South and North Canadian, and Cimaron 
rivers. After the end of the expedition I returned in company 
with Colonel Snively over nearly the same route to Clarksville, 
and in this way I became familiar with the streams, mountains 
and physical features of the country. 

To the third direct interrogatory he answers: I learned after ar- 
riving in Texas, from early American settlers, from native Mexi- 
cans, and from Indians of the Indian Nation, where the eastern 
boundary of Texas was located, under the treaty of 1819, to-wit : 
Beginning at mouth of Sabine river, up that stream to thirty- 
second parallel of north latitude, thence north to Red River, 
thence up Red River to the one hundredth parallel of longitude, 
thence north to 30.30 north latitude. This boundary followed 
Red River past what is now called South Fork of Red River, and 
on up the so-called North Fork of Red River. Said streams were 
first called North and South Fork of Red River by Capt. R. B. 
Marcy in 1852. Previously they were always called '*Red 
River " (meaning what is now called the North Fork) and 
" Prairie Dog Town " river (meaning the South Fork.) 

To the fourth direct interrogatory he answers : It was called 
by the Indians and other foreignei's mentioned " Chiquiahqua- 
hono," which the English speaking people interpreted to mean 
"Prairie Dog Town River," which is the name I knew it by in 
1843 and ever afterwards. It was not called Fork. It was 
known as above stated and regarded as a distinct and separate 
river, entirely different from "Red River" and was always 
called, by the old settlers with whom I have talked, "Prairie 
Dog Town River," and whenever there was a rise the water in 
this river took its color from the light colored soil in which the 
prairie dogs made their villages. 

To the fifth direct interrogatory he answers : It was always, 
prior to 1852, called "Red River" or "RioRoxoof Nachitoches," 
or "of Louisiana," from the earliest time I ever heard any one 
speak of it, and I remember our guide, James O. Rice, distinctly 
gave these names to the two streams. 

There were all along what I always knew as "Red River" 
such, signs of Indians and explorers indicating that this stream 
had long been known and visited before our expedition in 1843, 
and as I said before many in our command had traversed this 



— 36 — 

country before and gave only the nanaes above mentioned, 
"Prairie Dog Town River" to South Fork and "Red River" to 
North Fork. The latter was named from the very red water 
which flowed in it, which became much redder from, arise. We 
discovered the cause of this to be the very red soil through 
which it ran and this red soil was only above the mouth of 
"Prairie Dog Town River." During my twenty odd years resi- 
dence on Red River we always knew from the color of the water 
in Red River whether the rain which caused the rise fell on the 
"Prairie Dog Town," "Salt and Pease" rivers which come into 
Red River from the south, or whether it fell on main " Rf'd 
River" above, where the red soil existed. It was this latter 
that we always regarded as the true boundary line between 
Texas and the United States, and it was so handed down to us 
by tradition of Mexicans and Indians. 

There is another distinction between "Prairie Dog Town 
river," and "Red River," which goes to show that the latter 
should be regarded as the main stream, and hence the true divi- 
ding line. 

" Prairie Dog Town river" runs through a fiat country, has 
very low banks incapable of containing much water, frequently 
spreadsout over great extent in freshets and is quick sandy, 
when it has water ; again, it is often dry. On this level are many 
Prairie Dog ' Towns," which gave name to it. 

" Red River" runs through an undulating country, has clay 
banks and bottom, and affords a much more steady stream of 
water, and never goes dry. 

There are other tributaries of "Red River" in that section, 
much better entitled, by volume and permanance of water, than 
Capt. Marcy's "South Fork," to claim to be the main river, as 
for instance, the "False Washita." 

To the sixth direct interrogatory, he answers : The territory, 
known as " Greer County;" has always, within my recollection, 
been claimed by Texas, both as a Republic and as a State. From 
reliable information imparted to me during my residence in 
Texas, (and in one of the instances from actual participation,) I 
know that said territory known as " Greer County " has at vari- 
ous times been occupied by the military forces of the Republic 
and State, under claim of ownership of same, since April, 1836, 
1. By scouting parties of Texas Rangers, then by Col, McLeod's 
Santa Fe expedition in 1841, which for the sake of water, fol- 
lowed "Red River" (or Capt. Marcy's North Fork,) to its source, 
and thence turned toward Santa Fe ; then by Col. Snively's ex- 
pedition in 1843, as I have fully detailed in former answer. All 
these passed into and through " Greer County," under instruc- 
tions not to cross "Red River," or not to go off the soil of Texas. 

Texas (Republic and State,) has always exercised civil juris- 
diction over the section known as " Greer County," by attach- 
ing it, as unorganized territory, to organized counties, by hav- 
ing her surveyors make locations of Texas land certificates 
upon the land, issuing patents therefor, etc., etc.; but bettor evi- 
dence of such facts may be found in the archieves of the State. 

To the seventh direct interrogatory, he answers : I have an- 



— 37 — 

swered this fully in former answers, and have no map or writ- 
ten document of explanation of the matter. 

Hugh F. Young. 
And I further certify that said Hugh F. Young, in my pres- 
ence, subscribed the writing aforesaid, and stated under oath, 
that the said answers to said interrogatories are true, to the best 
of his knowledge and belief. 

Given under my hand and seal of office, at San Antonio, 
[l.s.] Texas, this fourth day of June, A. D. 1886. 

J. H. French, 
Notary Public, Bexar county, Texas. 

III. 

deposition of s. p. ross. 

The State of Texas, ) 
McLennan County, f In pursuance of the interrogatories 
hereunto regent, propounded by J. T. Brackenridge, Chairman of 
the Boundary Commission, on the part of Texas, and the agree- 
ment hereunto attached, I, E. M. Ewing, have caused to come 
before me S. P. Ross, a resident of said county, who, having 
been by me legally sworn to true answers make to said inter- 
rogatories, answered as follows: 

Answer to First Interrogatories: 

I am seventy-five years of age. 

I have resided in Texas forty-six years. 

I have held both civil and military offices in Texas. 

I was the first postmaster in Waco, Texas; this is the only 
strictly civil office I ever held. 

I was a captain in the United States army in the war with 
Mexico, and served in 184G-7-8-9 as such. 

I was appointed, in 1855, Tfnited States Indian agent for the 
Brazos agency, including five different tribes of Indians, and 
continued as sucii agent until I was ordered to remove them to 
the Indian Nation, on the Washita river, which I did in 185U. 

Answer to Second: 

I am acquainted with the territory named and described on the 
maps as Greer county; I have explored all the territory from the 
head of the Colorado to the Canadian river, and know all the 
rivers and physical features of the country named. In 18-47, I, 
as captain (above stated), was ordered by the United States gov- 
ernment to give military assistance to Major Neighbors, who was 
then in charge of said Indian agency and all Indians in Texas, 
He called on me, and I went with my command to the Clear 
Fork of the Brazos, called by the Indian? "Tah Kon ho Mep," 
which is interpreted Snow river. In 1858, I was ordered to meet 
the United States troops in the country of the Comanche Indians, 
at the head of Pease river, I did so. I had Jim Shaw, a Dela- 
ware Indian, as interpreter, and some Indians from five differ- 
ent tribes. Jim Shaw had been their interpreter for h long time, 
and he and those other Indians knew the physical features of 



— 38 — 

all the region of country, and knew its mountains and streams, 
and the names by which they were called. I learned from them 
the names of all the rivers in that region of country, and that 
embraced Greer country. 

Answer to Third: 

In 1858, with a command of over one hundred Indians, in com- 
pany with Capt. John S. Ford, who was in command of about 
one hundred white soldiers, I went on an expedition against the 
Comanche Indians. We crossed Red River below the mouth of 
the stream called by the Indians Tech-ah-qua ho-mep -in Eng- 
lish this means Prairie Dog river. We then went five days' 
travel up the Red River, \fter the third day, crossing back 
into Texas below Mount Webster. We went about ten miles 
and recrossed. I mean by Red River, the stream now claimed 
as the North Fork of Red River, on the northern boundary of 
Greer county. I had an old Waco chief with me, who, when 
we got up into that region, and at the last named crossing, told 
me that he was born and raised up there on Red River, at that 
place; and showed me the place, which was at the crossing we 
were then making; and I asiced him what the river was called. 
He replied, Red River. At this place we had with us Jim Logan, 
an old Delaware Indian, who had been an old trader and hunter 
in that region, and who had been with b'.th Capt. Marcy and 
Major ISTeighbors, in that region, as a liunter. Jim Logan said 
to me; while we were on the east side of this river: " This is In- 
dian territory," pointing eastwardly; and, pointing to the south 
side of the river and directly north, also, said: " That is Texas." 
Jim Logan also showed me a corner on this river, where, he said, 
Marcy had placed a pile of rock; and there, pointing north, he 
said, could be found a place on the mountains, on the line, he 
said, Marcy run, where were cut Marcy's name. Neighbors' 
name. Black Foot's name, and his (Jim Logan's) name. This 
crossing is on the Red River, which is claimed by Texas as the 
northern and eastern boundary of Greer county. We then wi^nt 
about ten miles and recrossed the same river. The Indians spoke 
of it again as Red River. We then recrossed to the east side, and 
kept up it two days' more travel. During this trip, an Indian of 
my command caught a runaway negro and brought him into 
camp. I asked him: "Did you catch him on Red River?" (on which 
we were then camped). He answered no; and, pointing south west- 
wardly, said he: "'We caught him on 'Teach ah qua honop.'" 
(Prairie Dog river.) I talked with many Indians. We were all 
interested in learning about the sti-eams and country, and I 
heard no stream called Red River but the one now claimed as 
the north and eastern boundary of Greer county, by Texas. All 
the other rivers in tliat region had distinct names. In 1859, I, as 
Indian agent, moved the Indians of the Brazos agency to the 
Indian territory, and located them there, myself on a hundred 
miles square; and, with my knowledge of the country and of 
the boundary line, I located them on the Washita, northeast of 
the Washita mountains. These Indians all understood fully that 
they had no' right to locate in or hunt in the territory now known 
as Greer county, as the old Indians seemed to understand the 



— 39 — 

matter fully. None of these Indians moved or located west or 
abov'e the mouth of Teach ah qua hono — or honop; and were 
located full fifty miles southeast of mouth of the Teach ah qua 
hone river. From these facts, I conclude that, by the treaty of 
1819, referred to in this question, none other could have been re- 
ferred to as Rio Roxo than the Red River, which is now claimed 
as the eastern and northern boundary of Greer county. I heard 
of no river other than this as Red River. 

Answer Fourth: 

I never knew the "Che qua ah qua hone" — which I spell, 
Teach ah qua hono — to be in any way called or referred to as a 
fork of Red River; but it was called by the Indian name above 
given, which means, in Indian, Prairie Dog river. It was so 
called because of the numerous prairie dog towns on it. The 
country was the home of the Comanches. 

Answer Fifth: 
Answered in answer to fourth. 

Answer Sixth: 

J. DeCordova made many surveys in territory known now as 
Greer county, claiming it as Texas territory, in 1856 or 1857. 
Old Indians who spoke the Mexican language always spoke of 
the territory south and west of Red River as belonging to Texas. 
The old ones of them all spoke the Mexican language, and 
seemed to be conversant with the boundary separating Mexico 
from the United States, when Texas belonged to Mexico. 

Answer to Seventh: 
I have stated all the facts I now can call to mind. 

S. P. Ross. 

The State of Texas, } 
McLennan County, f Before me, E. M. Ewing, a notary 
public of McLennan county, Texas, on this day, personally ap 
peared S. P. Ross, and swore to and subscribed the foregoing 
answers, on this 19th of May, 1886. 

Given under my hand and seal of office, the date above written, 

E. M. EWiNG, 

Notary Public, McLennan county, Texas. 
IV. 
deposition of george b. erath. 

The State of Texas, ) 

McLennan County, \ By virtue of the interrogatories 
hereto attached, propounded by J. T. Brackenridge, chair- 
man of the Boundary Commission, on the part of Texas, and 
the agreement cited, I have caused to come before me, George 
B, Erath, of McLennan county, state of Texas, who, having 
been by me sworn the truth to answer to the said interrogatories, 
deposeUi and sayeth as follows : 



— 40 — 

Answer to First : 

I am seventy-three years of age. I have resided in 
Texas fifty-three years. I have occupied military and 
civil positions. I held all the military positions from private to 
captain, dui'ing the Texas revolution. I was commissioned cap- 
tain on the eighth of March, 1839, in the army of the Republic of 
Texas. In 1843 I was elected to the lower house of the congress 
of the Republic of Texas, and re-elected in 1844 and 1845. I was 
elected to the first legislature of Texas, and served in 1846, and 
was repeatedly afterwards elected to the state senate of Texas. 
And prior to the late civil war, at all intervale, civil and military^ 
I acted as deputy surveyor of Milam district. 

Answ^er to Second : 

I have no personal knowledge of the eastern or northern 
boundary of Texas, or of the physical features of Greer county, 
never having been in the limits thereof. 

Answer to Third : 

Although I have not been actually within the territory 
of Greer county, nor have seen the streams mentioned, yet, 
as a member of the congress of the Republic of Texas, 
(and, my impression is, as a member of a committee,) it 
became my duty to especially investigate the boundary of Texas, 
between the United States and Texas, in 1843. Colonel Snively, 
during that year, with a command of Texans, was captured on 
the Arkansas, by a force of the United States, it being clairned 
that he was within the territory of the latter. But this had 
nothing to do with Red River. At that time Texas claimed that 
the head of the Arkansas was within Texas territory, which was 
conceded by the United States in its subsequent purchase of ter- 
ritory of Texas. In this investigation it became necessary to 
place the entire eastern and northern boundary of Texas, and, 
of course, to ascertain from all possible inquiry the locality of 
tlie Red River, or Rio Roxo, as laid down on the maps extant at 
tliat day, and referred to in the treaty of 181'.), between the 
United State and the Kingdom of Spain. We, fully as our means 
would permit, examined the Mexican maps, and such as we could 
find of the United States and Melish's maps. We also, in order 
to ascertain the stream that had been before that date, 1843, 
known as Red River, or Rio Roxo, examined old hunters and 
trappers, and others who were familiar with the territory 
through which the stream courses, and from them we could learn 
nothing of but one stream, then and before that time called Red 
River, and that is tiie stream now called the North Fork of Red 
River. There was no stream in 1843 called the South Fork of 
Red River, nor any called the North Fork. I also, while engaged 
in military expeditions on and up the Brazos, during the times I 
was in the military service of the Republic of Texas, met up 
with old hunters and trappers, and made inquiries about the 
region of country on the border of Texas, and as to the streams, 
and never heard from any of them of any but one Red River, I 
have every reason to believe that they were fully acquainted 
with the entire region of country in which Greer county is situ- 



_ ^1 _ 

hied. Especially in 18:]7, when enij^aged in an expedition under 
command of Captain Eastland, which expedition went further 
westward of the Brazos river than any previous expedition, or 
any before annexation, we were accompanied by six or more old 
hunters and trappers, who had been for many years hunting and 
trapping on Red River and in the region of the territory em- 
braced in Greer county. These men had come from that region 
to join the expedition, and importuned the commander to go up 
to Red River, and in the region in question, and attack 
certain Indian villages on and in the region of Red 
River, and they particularly described the locality of the 
villages and spoke of the streams, and never mentioned but one 
Red River, which, from their description, is the one now claimed 
the North Fork of Red River. They called it simply Red River. 
These men were over fifty years of age, and had in their number 
three whose names I now recollect, two Bluers and one Nichol- 
son. A portion of the men of the command separated from 
Eastland's company and went with the hunters and trappers on 
an independent expedition to make the attack, and more than 
half of them were killed before reaching Red River. There were 
eighteen, including the hunters and trappers, who went on this 
expedition, and their nominal commander was one Vanthuseyere. 
These hunters and trappers spoke of and described the stream 
now claimed or assumed to be the South Fork of Red River. 
They described it as a stream that at times, when the weather 
was very wet, or in rainy seasons, was from one-half mile to a 
mile and a half wide, with a bottom of quicksand, and that in 
crossing it they had to go rapidly, to keep from sinking. They 
stated that it was called by the Comanche Indians, Prairie Dog 
water. These trappers stated that this last named stream con- 
nected with the Red River. I never heard of this stream being 
called the South Fork of the Red River until after 185G. This 
was when Cordova went up there on a surveying expedition. 

Answer to Fourth : 

No white man, Spaniards, French or others, knew anything 
about it, except such hunters and trappers as above stated. I 
never heard the Indians call it. I have answered fully the bal- 
ance of this in my third, except I will state that I never heard 
of Captain Marcy's calling this Prairie Dog water the South 
Fork of Red River. I heard of a surveyor by the name of Miller 
claiming that Marcy was wrong, and that he fixed it so by an 
observation. Afterwards a man by the name of Hedgecoke, or 
Hetchcock, claimed that by a more careful examination he found 
Miller wrong. After this I heard for the first time, in 1856, that 
this so-called South Fork was such — or main river — and those 
that claimed as such, did so simply on account of length and 
width during wet seasons. The description of this river, this 
Prairie Dog river, is that in dry seasons it has no water, except 
at night the water rises and in the day sinks. In wet seasons, 
by reason of the banks being low and flat, it spreads to a con- 
siderable width, as above stated. By reason of stock tramping 
the country, it may now be changed, but the characteristics 
above given by me are such as the traders, trappers and hunters 



gave me. I will state further, that I expected to be the commis- 
sioner appointed on the part of Texas to settle the boundary, in 
1853, and I made many inquiries with reference to the question, 
on that account. The reason that this was not done, the con- 
gress of the United States did not take action until I was elected 
to the state senate. 

Answer to Fifth : 

The river now claimed as the North Fork of Red River was, 
before 1852, known and called by no other name, in English, than 
Red River. In Mexican it was Rio Roxo. I, before that time, 
had never heard the term "fork," applied to it in either 
language. 

Answer to Sixth : 

The Santa Fe expedition, authorized by .the president of the 
Republic of Texas, in 1841, traversed this region, known as 
Greer county, and it was then claimed as territory of Texas, and 
this claim was not dispu<^ed. In 1843 Colonel Snively, by authority 
of the president of Texas, traversed Greer county with his com- 
mand, and it was claimed and treated as territory of Texas by 
President Lamar, who authorized the first, and President Hous- 
ton, who authorized the latter. 

Answer to Seventh : 

I have stated all the facts that I know of, but will state that the 
first time I ever heard a claim put up for the United States to 
this (Greer) county, was in 1859, when it was put forth by some 
Indian agents. 

G. B. Erath. 

State of Texas, } 
McLennan County. \ Before the undersigned authority, on 
this day, personally came George B. Erath, and signed and swore 
to, before me, the foregoing answers, and declares, on oath, that 
the same are true. 

Given under my hand and seal of office, this eighteenth day 
[l. S.J of May, 1886. 

E. M. Ewing, 
Notary Public, McLennan County, Texas. 

V. 

deposition of JOHN S. FORD. 

The State of Texas, ( 

County of Bexar, \ By virtue of the authority vested 
in me by law, and in pursuance to a question of a 
Joint Commission of Boundary, of which J. T. Brackenridge 
was President on the part of the State of Texas, and S. W. 
Mansfield is the senior officer on the part of the United States, 
I, Edward Miles, a notary ])ublic in and for the county of Bexar, 
duly commissioned and qualified, caused John S. Ford, witness 
resident of Bexar county, Texas, to appear before me and after 



— 43 — 

first being by me duly sworn to true answers make to tlie inter- 
rogatories to him propounded, responded as follows : 

Answer to First Direct Interrogatory : 

Age 71 years. I have resided in Texas within a 
fraction of^ fifty years. I have held both civil and 
military offices. I have been a member of Congress 
in the Republic of Texas in the years 1844 and 1845; Public 
Printer for the State of Texas in the years 184G and 1847; Adju- 
tant of Colonel Jack Hays' Rangers in 1847 and 1848; in the 
years 1849, 1850 and 1851 Captain of Mounted Volunteers in the 
service of the United States; in 1852 Senator in the State Legis-. 
lature, Austin District; in 1858 Captain of Texas State Troops 
serving on the frontier; commanding the whole frontier also in 
the early part of the year 1859; in the years 1859 and 18G0 com- 
mander of the Texas State Troops in the Cortina war, and Colo- 
nel in the Confederate service during the war; Delegate to the 
State Constitutional Convention in the year 1875; State Senator 
from 1876 to 1879; Superintendent Deaf and Dumb Asylum from 
1879 to 1883; Deputy CoUec'tor Internal Revenue from June, 
1885, to date, besides other positions which it is not material to 
mention. 

Answer to Interrogatory Second : 

I am acquainted with the border aijd eastern boundary of 
Texas. I do understand the territory described as Greer county, 
having been in it. I was in Greer county in 1858; camped in it, 
and became tolerably well acqtiainted with its topographical 
features. I campaigned up and down Red River, the boundary 
line, during the years 1858 and 1859. On the east side of Red 
River is the Wichetaw mountains, and along the valley of Red 
River there are some peaks said to be one thousand feet in alti- 
tude. Several of these lie above and east of what is known as 
Prairie Dog river. 

Answer to Interrogatory Third : 

At an early date that country was occupied by troops under 
Colonel Jacob Snively, previous to the annexation of Texas. 
During the year 1843' he was moving in that direction for the 
purpose of intercepting a caravan of Mexican traders on their 
way to Santa Fe, and which is in New Mexico, then belonging 
to Texas. His command was captured by an officer of the United 
States army, Captain Cook. It was then understood that this 
affair happened on the territory belonging to the Republic of 
Texas. The same was made a matter of diplomatic correspond- 
ence and action by the Republic of Texas and of the United 
States. At different dates parties of Texans went into that 
country for various purposes. 

Land was surveyed by Texas surveyors on Red River between 
Prairie Dog river and Red River, and between Red River and 
the False Washita. 

The jurisdiction of Texas over that territory was never ques- 
tioned by any civilized power as far as I have heard. It is true 
the Indians contested its occupancy by the whites, as they had 
done in every State in the Union, 



_ u -^- 

1 speak of the boundary line between Spain and the United 
States as it was understood by the people of Texas in 1836 and 
since, and that boundary is known as Red River, or what is 
sometimes called the North Fork of Red River. I am not able 
to say at what date the terms North and South Fork of Red 
River was first used. I do know that Indians raised in that sec- 
tion, hunting and campaigning also, invariably designated what 
is now called the North Fork of Red River, as Red River. I saw 
them make maps on the ground on various occasions in 1858 and 
1859, and held various councils with them; and they never de- 
parted from this rule. My command in 1858 consisted of 100 
Americans and 113 Indians. Among the whites were men who 
had explored the country, campaigned over it and helped to 
survey it. They all agreed with the Indians, and always spoke 
of Red River, and always said they meant what is now called 
the North Fork. 

Answer to Interrogatory Fourth: 

I have always understood what the Comanches called 
Teach-a-que-hone-up, or Prairie *Dog river, was first called 
South Fork of Red River by Captain Marcy, at a date I 
cannot now recall. It was alw3,ys considered to be a distinct 
river from Red River; and no one, until very recently, ever 
attempted to confound the two. Their characteristics are 
different. The Prairie Dog river is broad and sluggish; it stands 
in holes in places, and has a considerable amount of sand in its 
channel and also in the valley. As a general rule, the water is 
shallow. Red River is a narrower and deeper stream; it has 
more current, and in my opinion furnishes more water than 
Prairie Dog river. The difference between the two streams 
above the junction is strongly marked. No man would be apt 
to mistake one for the other without doing injustice to truth 
and common sense. 

Answer to Interrogatory Fifth : 

From the year 1836 up to the date of Marcy's Explora- 
tion, what is now called the North Fork of Red River 
was known simply as Red River — the Rio Rojo — the bound- 
ary line between the Spanish possessions in Mexico and the 
United States, as specified in the treaty of 1819. I can- 
not tell how long what is now termed the North Fork was 
known as Red River. On the North Fork or Red River are 
evidences of encampments, made many years ago. In 1858, 
Indians in my command pointed out a spot on the North Fork, or 
Red River, where they had established a village. "Shot Arm," 
a Waco chief, an old man, was born and raised at that point, 
which was above the mouth of Prairie Dog river, and all the 
Indians of his tribe said the village was on Red River. About 
the year 1800 Col. Ellis P. Bean, in his memoirs, speaks of the 
Caddo town on Red River, which must have stood, according to 
accounts, not far from the mouth of Pease river. Others of the 
Indians in my command had been born in tliat section, and were 
well acquainted with the whole country, and not one out of one 
hundred and thirteen ever thought of designating any stream 



— 45 — 

but the North Fork as Red River. They invariably spoke of 
Prairie Dog river as different and distinct from Red River. 
Their traditions run back to the days of the Spanish and Mexi- 
can occupancy of that country, and they persistently represented 
the North Fork of Red River as the boundary between the 
Spanish and American races, consequently the river mentioned 
in the treaty of 1819. I again refer you to the expedition of 
Col. Jacob Snively, in 1843. He was acting under the authority 
of the Hon. G. W. Hill, Secretary of War during Gen. Hous- 
ton's second term as President of the Republic of Texas. It 
resulted in the armed occupation of the country in question, and 
the eventual invasion of Texas soil by Capt. Philip St. George 
Cooke, of the United States army. Snively's command surren- 
dered to Cooke on the Arkansas river. The congress of the 
United States afterwards acknowledged the claim of Texas to 
the soil and the illegality of Captain Cooke's proceedings. See 
Yoakum's History of Texas, Volume II, page 405, foot note. 

Answer to Interrogatory Sixth: 

As before stated, the jurisdiction of Spain, the Republic of 
Mexico, the Republic of Texas and the State of Texas extended 
over Greer county for a long period of time, and over all the 
territory south of Red River, or the so-called North Fork. The 
United States exercised no jurisdiction over the above-mentioned 
territory, as far as known, until after annexation, and then only 
through the instrumentality of the articles of annexation. 
Texas occupied the country between Prairie Dog river and Red 
River, notably during Snively's expedition in 1843, during other 
military occupations, and by parties of surveyors, traders, etc. 
It is not the custom, even in the United States, to attempt to 
exercise civil jurisdiction over a territory infested by bands 
of Indians. 

Answer to Interrogatory Seventh: 

The occupation of the county of Greer by troops placed in the 
field by the State of Texas in 1858, and at other periods of time, 
produced no question of ownership to the soil or right of juris- 
diction. After the State of Texas had expended life and treas- 
ure in opening up the country in question to settlement, it seems 
rather late for the United States to interpose a claim of owner- 
ship and jurisdiction. 

In order to more fully explain the foregoing, it is necessary to 
state that in 1858 I was appointed to command the State troops 
of Texas operating against the hostile Indians; that early during 
the year I formed an encampment near the mouth of Hubbard 
creek on the Clear Fork of the Brazos. In April of said year 
an expedition was fitted out against the hostile Comanches. It 
consisted of one hundred Americans and one hundred and thir- 
teen friendly Indians, the latter being under the control of Capt. 
Shapley P. Ross, agent for the Brazos reservation, on which was 
located various tribes of Indians. During tiiis campaign we 
struck Red River near the Wichita mountains, and moved up 
the same, crossing and recrossing to suit our convenience. We 
made a number of encampments in what is now known as the 



— 4:6 — 

county of Greer, and became pretty well acquainted with its 
topography. We passed up the valley of Red River, or what is 
now called the North Fork of Red River, into the gypsum region. 
On the 13th of May, 1858, we fought and defeated the Coman- 
ches, on the South Canadian, and returned back from that point. 
Early in the spring of 1869, I was again campaigning on the 
waters of upper Red River against the hostile Indians, and 
again had friendly Indians under my command. During these 
operations I became acquainted with the Indian views concern- 
ing Red River, and all agreed, without exception, that what is 
now called the North Fork was the Red River of Louisiana, and 
the same stream mentioned in the treaty between Spain and the 
United States in 1819. 

John S. Ford. 

The State of Texas, ) 

County of Bexar, f I, Edward Miles, a Notary Public in 
and for Bexar county, Texas, do hereby certify that the fore- 
going answers to direct interrogatories of John S. Ford, witness, 
were by the said witness signed and sworn to before me. 
Given under my hand and seal of office this twenty-eighth 
[L. s.] day 'of May, 1886. 

Edward Miles, 
Notary Public, Bexar County, Texas. 
Fees paid me by J. T. B. 



U. S. Joint Commission on Boundary: 

Answers and depositions of the witness, H. P. Bee, a resident 
of the city of Austin, Travis county, Texas, to the accompany- 
ing interrogatories propounded to him in the above entitled 
matter, taken before M, S. Dunn, a duly commissioned and qual- 
ified notary public in and for the county of Travis, in accord- 
ance with a commission herewith accompanying, issued by J. T. 
Brackenridge, chairman of the Texas Boundary Commission, to 
take the answers and depositions of the following named wit- 
nesses in Travis county, Texas, viz: O. M. Roberts, John M. 
Swisher, John Hancock, Ham. P. Bee, Perry Day, P. DeCor- 
dova, Wm. Pitts, et al., and signed thus: "J. T. Brackenridge, 
chairman on the part of Texas of B. C." 

deposition op h. p. bee. 

The said witness, H. P. Bee, answers as follows: 

Austin, June 10, 1886. 

Answers to interrogatories propounded by Major J. T. Brack- 
enridge, Chairman of the Boundary Commission on the part of 
Texas: 

Answer to First Interrogatory : 

Hamilton P. Bee, 63 years of age; born in Charleston, S. C. ; 
son of Barnard E. and Ann Fayssoux Bee; educated in Charles- 
ton and Pendleton, S. C. ; moved to Texas in October, 1837, and 
have resided here ever since. 

In 1839 was Secretary on the part of Texas for the Boundary 



— 4:7 — 

Commission for marking^ the line between the United States and 
the Republic of Texas, in which service the boundary line was 
run and marked from the mouth of the Sabine, in the sea, to 
where the thirty-sf^cond parallel of north latitude crosses the 
Sabine river; thence due north to the Red River, which work 
was concluded in the year 1841. 

Served in various expeditions against the Indians up to an- 
nexation in 1815. Served as private and lieutenant of volun- 
teers from Texas in the Mexican war from 1846 to 1848. Was 
elected to the Legislature in 1849 from Webb county and served 
continously till 1857, being Speaker of the House of Representa- 
tives for the session of 1 855-56. Was appointed in 1862 brigadier- 
general of the regular army of the Confederate States and served 
as such till the close of the war. At present am Commissioner 
of Insurance, Statistics and History for the State of Texas, re- 
siding at the city of Austin. 

Answer to Second Interrogatory : 

In 1843 I accompanied Col. Joe C. Eldridge, Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs of the Republic of Texas, and Thomas Tarry, In- 
dian Agent for the same, who were sent by President Houston 
to visit the various wild tribes of Indians of the frontiers of 
Texas and invite them to a treaty, proposed to be held by Presi- 
dent Houston himself, at Bird's Fort, on the Trinity (now Fort 
Worth). 

Leaving Washington on the Brazos, in March 1843, we pro- 
ceeded to Fort Marlin, where the town of Marlin now stands, 
which was then the outer settlement of that portion of the frontier 
of Texas ; from thence we proceeded up the Brazos river to a spot 
about opposite Comanche Peak ; thence to the West Fork of the 
Trinity ; thence through what are now the counties of Parker, 
Jack and Clay, crossing Red River near the mouth of Big 
Wichita. 

Accompanying this expedition, as guides and interpreters, 
were three noted Delaware Indians, Jim Shaw, John Conner, 
Jim Secondye ; The two first named were thoroughly acquainted 
with the country through which we passed, and were on 
friendly terms with all Indian tribes inhabiting that country. 
When we arrived at the Red River, a stream of great width, 
whose shallow waters were entirely salty, I remember that Jim 
Shaw remarked to us : "This is the Red River" (this point was 
below the forks); crossing the river we struck the East Cache 
creek, and ascended that clear, beautiful stream to the village 
of the Wichita Indians (near what is now Fort Sill). Leaving 
Wichita village we traversed the country in a northwest and 
westerly direction for about 20 days, in search of the 
Comanche Indians. In the course of this march we approached 
a large river, which Jim Shaw told us was the Red River, the 
same as we had crossed near the mouth of the Big Wichita. 
(This is now shown in the map to have been above the forks of the 
river.) He did not make mention of any other Red River lying 
further to the west. After accomplishing the object of the expe- 
dition, i. e., the meeting with the Comanches, we returned to 
the Wichita village, from which place I returned to Texas with 



~ is- 

a part of the expedition, crossing Red River at Warren's trading 
house, then the outermost point occupied by the Americans, and 
thence, by way of Bird's Fort, to Washington, arriving in No- 
vember, 1843, 

Answer to Third lNTERRor4ATORY: 

At the time I traveled through the country above described, 
there was only one Red River known to us, and judging from 
what Jim Shaw told us, to the Indians themselves. The exist- 
ence of a South Fork I never heard of till the expedition of 
Captain Marcy, in 1852. 

Answer to Fourth Interrociatory: 

So far as opportunity was given to me to acquire information 
in 1843, I am satisfied that there was but one Red River known 
to the Indians, explorers and traders in that country, and I did 
not know till the published reports of Captain Marcy that there 
existed the Chiquehquiohoxna, or Prairie Dog Town river. 

Answer to Fifth Interrogatory: 

Prior to 1852, I knew of but one Red River, the Rio Roxa of 
Nachitoches, as called for in the treaty of 1819, and to my 
knowledge it had never been called by any other name. The 
only signs along the river were the Indian villages, and the 
country was occupied by roving bands of Indians. 

Answer to Sixth Interrogatory: 

Having resided in Texas for forty-nine years, I am enabled to 
say that the right of Texas to what is now Greer county has 
always been held to be incontrovertable. I have no further 
sources of information than that given above. 

Answer to Seventh Interrogatory : 
My answer to this is included m my answers above written. 

It may not be irrelevant to state that during the sum- 
mer of 1843, the summer that I was on the plains with 
the commission in search of the Indian tribes, by order of the 
authorities of the Republic of Texas; that, some time in July of 
that year we encountered, on the north and east side of the Red 
River, a body of Texas soldiers, about one hundred strong, under 
the command, I believe, of Captain Ross, who now lives at 
Waco, who gave us an account of the capture of the command 
of Colonel Snively, by Captain St. George Cook, of the First 
Dragoons, United States army, at the crossing on the Arkansas 
of the great Santa Fe road from Independence to Santa Fe ; that 
Captain Cook was ordered not to cross the Arkansas, as it was 
considered as the boundary line between Mexico and the United 
States, the question of sovereignty not having been settled be- 
tween Texas and Mexico. 

H. P. Bee. 



• 



-49 - 

The State of Texas, ) 
Travis County. \ I, M. S. Dunn, a duly commissioned 
and qualified notary public, in and for the county and state 
aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing answers of H. P. 
Bee, the witness before named, were made before me, and were 
sworn to and subscribed before me by the said witness, H. P. 
Bee. 
Given under my hand and official seal this, the fifteenth day 
[l. s.] of June, A. D., 1886. 

M. S. Dunn, 
Notary Public, Travis County, Texas. 

United States Joint Commission on Boundary: 

Answers and depositions of the witness Wm. A. Pitts, a resi- 
dent citizen of Travis county, Texas, to the accompanying inter- 
rogatories, propounded to him in the above entitled matter, 
taken before M. S. Dunn, a duly commissioned and qualified 
Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, in ac- 
cordance with a commission issued by Maj. J. T. Brackenridge, 
Chairman of the Texas Boundary Commission, to take the deposi- 
tions of the following named witnesses of Travis county, viz : O. 
M. Roberts, Wm. A. Pitts, John Hancock, Perry Day, Frank Mad- 
dox, et. als., and signed thus: "J. T. Brackenridge, (vhr. Texas 
Boundary Commission." 

In answer to interrogatory first the witness says : 

I was born in Georgia on the 30th of October, 1830; in 1839 my 
parents moved to Macon county, Alabama, and in 1846 they 
moved to Montgomery county, Texas, and in 1847 settled in Hays 
county, Texas. Up to 1850 I was a stock boy; in 1850 I joined 
the ranging service under Captain McCulloch, and served under 
him and others until 1855, when I was appointed deputy county 
clerk of Guadalupe county, Texas; in 1857-8 I was Sergeant-at- 
Arms of the Senate chamber. In 1858 I was second lieutenant 
of Ford's frontier company. In 1859 I was clerk in ComproUer's 
office of the State. 

In 1861 I was captain of company B of McCulloch's regiment 
and was afterwards captain of ordnance on McCulloch's staff. 
Was in charge of Marshall arsenal during the late war. After 
the war I was engaged in the auction and commission business 
in Austin, Texas, until 1874, when I was appointed chief clerk 
of the Comptroller's office. 

And to second interrogatory said: 

I know that in 185S Gov. Runnels appointed Col. John S. Ford 
to raise a company for the upper Brazos country, of which I 
was second lieutenant, and proceeded with it to Pecan Bayou, 
where we met Captain John Connor's company, whose term of 
service was then expiring. Capt. Ford divided his command 
into four scouting parties, I being in command of one. Capt. 
Ford called upon the Indian agents, of whom Capt. Ross was 
one, to co-operate with him. The Comanches were then raiding 
upon the settlements every full moon. 

Spies were sent out by Capts. Ford and Ross among the hos- 
tiles; and preparations were made to move as soon as they 
should report. 



— 50 — 

About the 25th of April, we marched with near lOO men of 
Capt. Ford's, and about 112 friendly Indians, under Capt. Ross. 

I went with a scouting party, being an old Indian hunter. 
We took with us I ndian scouts and guides. We had two main 
guides — "Jim Pockmark " was one, and Doss, the other. 

They were familiar with upper Red River, having lived there, 
and their fathers before them. 

The orders given us were to keep on Texas Territory. We took 
our course nearly due north, struck Red River near the mouth of 
Pease river, crossed to the north or east bank and camped. The 
next day we started up the east bank, the river, (Red River) run- 
ing nearly north ; passed here the point marked by Marcy as the 
100th degree of longitude ; passed a large sand flat on the west 
side, it had no water visible. It looked like a sand valley two or 
three hundred yards wide, with low banks on both sides. I 
asked the Indian guides what it was ? They said it was the 
mouth of the " Kechi Aque-ho-no,'' in English, "Prairie Dog 
Town River." It did not look like a river to me, as there was 
no water in it. 

That evening we re-crossed Red River above the mouth of Prai- 
rie Dog Town river, and just above a grove of tall Cottonwood 
trees, and camped on the south or west side of Red River. Our 
Indians, some of whom had been born on this river, as well as 
their fathers before them, said this stream was Red River, 
and that the stream below was Prairie Dog Town river. They 
did not use the word "fork" of Red River, nor the words 
" north " or " south," in speaking of them. 

My knowledge of the two streams was like that I had of the 
town of Bonham, for instance. When I was in Bonham, the 
citizens called it Bonham, and I heard it called by no other name ; 
when I was on Red River, the Indians, who had lived there, 
called it Red River, and by no other name. We had been or- 
dered up Red River, and when we got to this point the Indians 
told us that was Red River. I heard them talk of it, and refer 
to it ; but they never called it anything else than Red River. 

They also spoke of the other river, and called it Prairie Dog 
River, or "Kechi-aque-ho-no," and when we passed where it 
mouthed into Red River they called it by these names, and that 
is the way I knew the names of those two rivers. < 

The next day we recrossed Red River, which they called Red 
River, and kept on the north or east side — considering ourselves 
all the time in Texas. Our general course was northwest. On 
the third day we camped on a beautiful stream called "Clear" 
or "Otter creek," and caught an abundance of fish. We then 
took a northerly course, and on the eleventh of May our guides » 
reported fresh Indian signs. The next day at daylight we 
attacked the Indians on the Canadian river. After the battle, 
we returned by a southerly course, crossed Red River much 
higher up than where we did going up. Struck the sand flat the 
Indians called the Prairie Dog Town river some distance above 
its mouth. Where we crossed it there was no water; it was a 
river of dry sand. I here discovered why the Indians called it 
the Prairie Dog Town river, by the innumerable prairie dogs or 
ground squirrels found burrowing along its banks. I will state 



— 51 — 

further that on our return trip the command, both men and 
animals, suffered greatly from want of water. 

In answer to fourth interrogatory, witness said: He has an- 
swered in previous answers all he knows on the subject. 

In answer to fifth interrogatory, witness said: He does not 
know any more than he has stated. 

In answer to sixth interrogatory, the witness said: The occu- 
pation of that country by Texas can better be stated by older 
men. 

In answer to seventh interrogatory, witness said: I have 
fully stated all I know relative to this matter. 

W. A. Pitts. 

The State of Texas, } 
County of Tkavis. ] I, M. S. Dunn, a duly commissioned 
and qualified notary public, in and for said state and county, do 
hereby certify that the foregoing answers of the witness, Wm. 
A. Pitts, were made before me, and were sworn to and sub- 
scribed before me by the said witness, Wm. A. Pitts. 

Given under my hand and official seal, at office, in the city of 
Austin, this, the 17th day of June, A. D. 1886. 

M. S. Dunn, 
Notary Public, Travis county, Texas. 



UNITED STATES JOINT COMMISSION ON BOUNDARY. 



Direct interrogatories to be propounded to the witnesses here- 
inafter named, and at the particular places described on the part 
of the commission for the state of Texas, under a joint 
resolution of agreement adopted by said joint commission on 
boundary between the United States and the State of Texas, 
the answers of the witnesses to be used as evidence before said 
joint commission. 

The witnesses are as follows, to- wit : Hon. Geo. B. Erath, 
who resides in McLennan county, Texas; Hon. O. M. Roberts, 
John M. Swisher. John Hancock, Ham. P. Bee, Perry Day, John 
'M. Day, Frank Maddox, P. De Cordova, William Pitts, Will 
Lambert, who reside in Travis county, Texas; S. P. Ross, of 
McLennan county, Texas; John S. Ford, of Bexar county, Texd,s; 
Chief Charley, of the Tonkawas, Fort Griffin, Texas ; S. S. Ross, 
McLennan county Texas ; H. L. Young, San Antonio, Bexar 
county, Texas ; George B. Erath, P. F. Ross, McLennan county 
Texas. 

First Direct Interrogatory : 

You will state your age and how long you have resided in 
Texas, and have you ever held any official position, civil or mili- 
tary. Declare when and where you held the same, and how long 
you exercised said trust. 



— 52 — 

Second Direct Interrogatory : 

Are you acquainted with the eastern border and boundary of 
Texas, and do you know that part of the territory described on 
the map of Texas as Greer county, and how long have you 
known the same, and have you ever traversed or explored said 
boundary line and made yourself familiar with that country, its 
streams, mountains and physical features generally. 

Third Direct Interrogatory : 

If you answer that you are acquainted with said eastern bor- 
der of Texas, its early history and phj^sical features, you will 
then state all facts within your knowledge tending to show where 
said eastern boundary was located, under the treaty of the 
twenty-second of February, 1819. between the United States and 
the Kingdom of Spain, and if you state that said boundary line 
runs at or near the two streams now known and called the North 
and South Fork of Red River, you will declare fully when said 
two streams took the names of North and South Fork of Red 
River, by whom were said two streams so named, and state par- 
ticularly by what names said two streams were known prior to 
the date they were first called by the names of the North and 
South Fork of Red River. 

Fourth Direct Interrogatory : 

If you answer that the said south fork of Red'river was first 
known and named the South Fork of Red river by Captain R. 
B. Marsy in 1853, you will declare by what name said stream 
was then and prior thereto called and known by the Indians, 
Spaniards, Mexicans and French, or others speaking thereof. 
If you answer said stream was called the Chiquiahquahono, 
state what said name meant when interpreted or translated into 
English. If you answer it meant Prairie-Dog-Town river, then 
state whether it bore the cognomen of " Fork," or was it known 
as above named, a distinct and separate river, as having no 
relation whatever to the Red River. And you will declare fully 
every fact tending to show that said stream bore a different 
name from that of Red River, and had always, prior thereto, 
been so known by the Indians and traders, and that the first 
change of said name showing said river to be a part of Red River 
was in 1853. 

Fifth Direct Interrogatory. 

If you answer that the north fork of Red River, so called, was 
so designated for the first time by Captain R. B. Marsy in 1853, 
you will then state what name said stream was known and 
called by prior to 1853, and how long prior to that time Avas said 
stream so called. And if you answer that said stream was 
known and called the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or Red River, 
state how long it had borne said name. If said stream had ever 
been called or known by any other name, you will also state 
whether there were any signs along said stream tending to show 
that it had been known for a long period of time, such as trails, 
roads, old camps, Indian villages, stumps of trees that had been 
cut, crossings made on the streams leading into the main stream, 



— 53 — 

maps of that country then in existence, traditions of Indians 
and white people concerning the same, historical sketches and 
references in the English, French, Spanish or Mexican lan- 
guages ; you will declare fully all matters and facts tending to 
show that said stream was the Red River referred to in the said 
treaty, and that it was then and since known as the true bound- 
ary line between Texas and the United States ; and if you have 
any map, historical sketch or ancient written document that 
will throw light on this question, attach the same to your answer 
and make it a part of the same. 

Sixth Direct Interrogatory. 

Has Texas ever exercised ownership, control, or had posses- 
sion of said territory, known and described as Greer county, 
located between said two " forks" of Red River, If so, you will 
answer distinctly as you can when such ownership was first 
exercised. Was the same under the Kingdom of Spain, the Re- 
public of Mexico,, the Republic of Texas, or the State of Texas, 
and how said ownership was exercised. State if any military 
control was ever exercised over the same. If the ctvil govern- 
ment was ever extended over said county. If the lands thereof 
have been located, and if the citizens of Texas have been pro- 
tected in their persons and their property within said county. 
Declare fully all official and public acts by the government of 
Texas and its predecessors claiming said territory, holding pos- 
session and exercising authority over the same. 

Seventh Direct Interrogatory. 

You will state any other fact that may be within your knowl- 
edge and possession, showing, or tending to show that the said 
territory known as Greer county belongs to the State of Texas 
under said treaty of February 22, 1819, and that the said North 
Fork of Red River, so called by Captain Marcey, was and is the 
true Red River described in the said treaty as the boundary line 
between Spain and the United States, and attach any map or 
written document to your evidence explaining the same. 

J. T. Brackenridge, 
Chairman on the part of Texas of Boundary Commission. 



United States Engineer Office, Hendl,y Building, ) 
Galveston, Tkxas, May 10, 188G. \ 
Major J. T. Brackem^idge, Chairman Texas Boundary Commis- 
sion, Austin, Texas : 
Dear Major — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
your favor of the sixth instant, including direct interrogatories 
to be propounded to certain old citizens that have, it is supposed, 
some information that they may impart, of value to the joint 
commission in determining the question in dispute between the 
United States and Texas. 

I think I can add nothing thereto, as the questions seem to 
cover the ground of inquiry, and I return the paper to you. 
It is my desire that the joint commission assemble at the 



— 54 — 

appointed time (June 15), and I will be present with the United 
States commissioner, in Austin, Texas, on said day, ready to 
proceed with the work before us. 

I leave here on Thursday, May 13, for Detroit, Michigan, my 
future station, though retaining temporary charge here. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. M. Mansfield, 
Maj. of Eng. and Bev. Col., U. S. A., Sr. Member U. S. Boundary 
Commission. 



ANSWERS OF FRANK M. MADDOX 

To interrogatories propounded to him by J. T. Brackenridge, 
chairman of the commission on the part of the State of Texas, 
to be used in evidence before the United States Joint Commis- 
sion on Boundary, taken before R. C. Shelley, a notary public in 
and for Travis county, Texas : 

To First Interrogatory : 

I am 36 years of age. Have resided in Texas all my life. 
Never held any position, civil or military, except that of deputy 
surveyor of Jack and Bexar land districts. I held such position 
for a period of six years. 

To Second Interrogatory : 

I am acquainted with the greater part of the eastern boundary 
of Texas, and I particularly know that part in the region of 
Greer county. I have traversed said boundary line, and I know 
all the principal streams in Greer county, and am familiar with 
the mountains and physical features generally. I have been in 
possession of this knowledge thirteen years. 

To Third Interrogatory : 

• I can not answer this interrogatory from my own personal 
knowledge. The only knowledge I have of the location of said 
boundary line is derived from the laws of Texas and the treaty 
referred to. I know from Captain Marcy's report of his explora- 
tions of that country, in 1853, that he discovered and named the 
North and South Fork of the Red River, and that prior to that 
time said south stream had been known as the Kechehquehono, 
or Prairie Dog Town river. 

To Fourth Interrogatory : 

As before stated, I know nothing except what is a matter of 
history. 

To Fifth Interrogatory : 

I know nothing except what I derived from history. 

To Sixth Interrogatory : 

The state of Texas has exercised ownership and control over 
and has had possession of said territory since 1860, when the 



— 55 — 

doiinty of Greer was created. The control and ownership over 
said territor}^ was evidenced by the stationing of troops therein 
at different times by the State of Texas. The civil government 
of Texas has been extended over said county, by acts of the 
legislature in attaching the same to organized counties for 
judicial and other purposes. A portion of the lands in said 
county have been located and patents issued thereon by the State 
of Texas, and the holders under said patents have been protected 
by the state in their rights, and have been required to pay taxes 
to the State of Texas upon their property. Persons have been 
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the state courts for 
crimes committed in said county, and Greer count} has been 
treated by the state as any other unorganized county within the 
borders of Texas. 

To Seventh Interrogatory: 

The North Fork flows more water than the South Fork, the 
latter being a dry sand bed at nearly all times of the year. The 
streams flowing into the Prairie Dog Town or South Fork are as 
follows: 

Frazier river, now called Salt Fork, Gypsum, Lebes and Buck 
or Clear creeks. Buck creek empties into Prairie Dog Town 
river about forty miles west of the confluence of North and 
South Fork. It is a bold, running stream, and furnishes the 
best water in that part of the country. It is fringed with Cot- 
tonwood timber, and there is a range of hills fifteen or twenty 
miles a little west of north from the mouth of said creek. 
Lebes creek empties into South Fork about twenty miles below 
the mouth of Buck or Clear creek. Gypsum creek empties into 
the South Fork twelve or fifteen miles below the mouth of 
Lebes; and Frazier or Salt Fork empties into said South Fork 
about two and one-half miles below the mouth of Gypsum. 
Frazier river is about thirty yards wide, and is dry most of the 
time. The Wichita mountains can be seen from a point near 
the mouth of Frazier river. For a distance of twenty miles up 
said river there is very little timber of any kind. 

The streams emptying into the North Fork are Elm Fork, Big 
and Little Turkey creeks. Sweet Water creek, and numerous 
other smaller streams. 

Elm Fork is a bold, running stream, emptying into North 
Fork at the base of the Wichita mountains, about forty miles 
above the confluence of North and South Forks. Big and Little 
Turkey creeks are living streams of water, emptying into North 
Fork about thirty miles above the mouth of Elm Fork. Sweet 
Water creek is about fifty miles in length, and runs more water 
(except Elm Fork) and better water than any other tributary of 
North Fork. 

There is a bend in Red River about one hundred miles below 
the confluence of North and South Fork, in what is now Monta- 
gue county, called Spanish Fort bend. Whether there was ever 
any fort there I have no personal knowledge, but I have heard 
mv father and uncle, who came to Texas in 1840, speak of such a 
fort. 

F. M. Maddox. 



— 66 — 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21st day of June, 1886. 
[l. s.] R. C. Shelley, 

Notary Public, Travis Co., Texas. 

The State of Texas, ) 
County of Travis. [ I, R. C. Shelley, a notary public in and 
for said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing answers of 
the witness, Frank M. Maddox. to interrogatories propounded 
to him by J. T. Brackenridge. chairmain on the part of Texas, 
boundary commission, were made before me, and were sworn to 
and subscribed by said witness before me. 

Given under my hand and seal of office this, the twenty-second 
[l. s.] day of June, A. D., 1886. 

R. C. Shelley, 
Notary Public, Travis County, Texas. 

ANSWERS of will LAMBERT. 

To First Interrogatory. 

I am past 46 years of age. Was born on Governors Island, N. 
Y., February 29, 1840, my father being at the time first sergeant 
of D company. First Infantry, United States army. I have 
resided in Texas since the fall of 1848. I have ]ield positions in 
Texas both civil and military. I was second lieutenant of D 
company. First regiment, Texas Mounted Riflemen, from April, 
1861, to April, 1862. Was assistant clerk of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, Tenth and Fifteenth legislatures ; was chief clerk of 
the House of Representatives, Sixteenth and Seventeenth legis- 
latures, and a general clerk in the house, Eighteenth legislature. 
Have been deputy clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, and 
served on the staff of Governor R. B. Hubbard as aide-decamp, 
commissioned as such, with the rank of colonel. My occupation 
is printer and journalist. 

To Second Interrogatory. 

I am acquainted with what appears on the present maps of 
Texas as the eastern boundary line, separating Greer county 
from the Indian Territory. 

To Third Interrogatory. 

I enlisted as a private in Captain Ed. Burleson's company of 
Texas rangers, and was regularly mustered into the State ser- 
vice on the twenty-third day of January, 1860, at the town of San 
Marcos, Hays county. After marching to San Antonio, where 
the equipment of the company was completed, we proceeded to 
Coleman county, and established headquarters on the south 
bank of Home creek, about eighteen miles south of Camp Colo- 
rado, then commanded by Captain E. Kirby Smith, Second cav- 
alry, U. S. A. After a series of minor scouts, in the month of 
June, 1860, Captain Burleson received oiders from Governor Sam 
Houston to march with his company and report to Colonel M. T. 
Johnson, in the Wichita mountains, Indian Territory. We 
arrived at Major Van Dorn's old camp — " Radziminsky" — about 
the last of the month, and remained there till near the close 



of September, In marching from our camp on Home creek 
to " Radziminsky," we passed through what are now known 
as the counties of Coleman, Callahan, Stephens and Young 
to Fort Belknap ; thence through, and in direction a little 
west of north through the ' counties of Young, Archer, 
Wilbarger and Hardeman, until we crossed Prairie Dog 
river ; thence traveling in a direction a little north of east, 
until crossing Red River near the mouth of Elm creek, and 
camped on Otter creek, about four or five miles south of '"Radzi- 
minsky," In crossing Prairie Dog river we found it more like a 
sand beach, over a half a mile in width, and perfectly dry; even 
water could not be found by digging. While camped in the 
Wichita mountains, "Old Placido,'' a Tonkawa chief, with some 
eighteen of his young men. came to our camp and were em- 
ployed to act as guides. "Placido" was quite familliar with 
Capt. Burleson, having fought with his father, Gen. Ed. Burle- 
son, and in 1858 was with the son who was a lieutenant in Capt. 
Ford's company of rangers, who fought the Comanches on the 
Canadian river. I have heard conversations between the two — 
conducted in Spanish and English, and the dry sand bed we 
crossed was generally spoken of and called Prairie Dog river. 
I think the Indians gave it this name because of the numberless 
prairie dogs that burrowed on its south bank. The old Indian 
would shake his head, when, in speaking of a scout, he would 
say : " No water in Chiquiahquahono ; heap buffalo ; heap prai- 
rie dogs." The first stream of water to the south of our camp 
was called Red River — in Spanish the Tonks called it "El Rio Col- 
orado." I have heard Capt. Burleson speak of what transpired in 
councils of war (while Col. Johnson and other officers were pres- 
ent), and the dry sandy stream was invariably called Prairie Dog 
river. Never heard of the " North Fork." Toward the end of Sep- 
tember Capt. Burleson, tired of, and disgusted with the lethargy 
and inactivity of his superior officers, broke up camp and started 
back to Texas. At the end of the first day's march we camped 
on Red River (put down now on map as North Fork), in which we 
found an abundance of water. My recollection is that it was 
running, both as we went up and returned. The end of the 
second day found us camped on a creek, where there was a 
number of large water holes. The weather being excessively 
warm, we made very short marches, always stopping where we 
struck good water and grass. The third day we recrossed the 
Prairie Dog river (South Fork of Red River), which was, as in 
June previously, totally dry as far up and down its course as we 
could see. One of our guides — a Mexican who had been an 
Indian captive — said it was always that way. Some twenty or 
more men in as many different places, dug for water for their 
horses, but found none, I was of the number, and my memory 
is very distinct on that point. Colton's map of Texas, accom- 
panying these answers, is referred to for a more distinct line of 
route traversed in going to and returning from camp Radzi- 
minsky. 

To Fourth Interrogatory : 
I know nothing of hoy^ the so-called "South Fork" was 



— 58 — 

named. I know the Indians and Mexicans with us, in 1860, 
called it " Chiqui-ah-ho-no," which means Prairie Dog Town 
river. 

To Fifth Interrogatory : 
I have no information on this point. 

To Sixth Interrogatory : 

I think Greer county was created in 1860, and has been claimed 
as Texas territory ever since. 

To Seventh Interrogatory : 
Have nothing more to state. 

Will Lambert. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this twenty-second day of 
[l. s,] June, 1886. 

R. C. Shelley, 
Notary Public, Travis County, Texas. 

The State of Texas, ) 

CouTY OF Travis, f I, R. C. Shelley, a notary public in and 
for said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing answers of 
the witness. Will Lambert, to certain interrogatories propounded 
to him by J. T. Brackenridge, chairman, on the part of Texas 
boundary commission, and which have been returned to the 
senior officer on the part of the United States boundary com- 
mission, with the answers of Frank M. Maddox, were made by 
said witness before me, and were sworn to and subscribed by 
said witness before me. 

Given under my hand and seal of office this twenty-third day 
[l. s.] of June, 1886. 

R. C. Shelley, 
Notary Public, Travis County, Texas. 



BOUNDARY SURVEY OF i860. 



INSTRUCTIONS FROM GOV. HOUSTON. 

Executive Department, ) 

Austin, April 28th, 1860. f 
Major Win. H. Russell, Commissioner of Boundai^y Survey : 

Sir — Upon receipt of these orders, and in prosecution of your 
commission, you will proceed to join the Commissioner on the 
part of the United States, at or near Fort Arbuckle, for the con- 
tinuance and completion of the survey of the boundary line 
between the State of Texas and the United States. 

With this you will receive copy of an extract from the treaty 
of February 22nd, "1819, confirmed April 5th, 1832, between the 
United States and Mexico, wherein the boundary lines are clearly 
defined and laid down. In prosecuting the survey upon a correct 
basis, there can arise but one point of dispute, that is, which of 
the three forks are to be regarded as the main prong of the Rio 
Roxo, or Red River. The treaty specifies that the boundary line 
shall be run according to the limits laid down in Melish's map, 
improved to January 1st, 1819. 

It would appear from a reference to Marcy's survey, that the 
three prongs of Red River were traced to their sources — the first, 
or North fork ; the second, or middle fork, running and empty- 
ing into the North fork, and Prairie-dog-town river, or the South 
fork of the main prong. It would also seem, from the particular 
notice given to the fork first explored — the North fork — that Mr. 
Marcy was clearly of the opinion that it w^as the true Rio Roxo, 
or Red River proper, and as such marked his encampment in 
latitude 35*^ 35' 3", and longitude 101° 55\ by burying under the 
roots of a large cottonwood tree, near the river, and below all 
others in the grove, a bottle, containing various memoranda, 
and by blazing the North and East sides of the tree ; upon the 
North side of which is the following inscription in pencil — " Ex- 
ploring Expedition, June 10, 1852." Upon neither of the other 
forks were such measures taken to mark them as of particular 
importance, other than branches of the main prong of the river. 

Mr. Marcy again says, writing under the date of May 26th — 
"We are now in the immediete vicinity of the Witchita moun- 
tains," a range of mountains lying East by North-east from the 
mouth of the Otter creek, and that "Red River, ivhich passes 
directly through the ivestern extremity of the chain, is different 



— 60 — 

in character at the mouth of Otter Creek, from tvhat it is below 
the junction of the Ke-che-ah-qui-ho-no." These significant 
facts, as stated by Mr, Marcy, can lead to no other conclusion 
than that he regarded the North fork as the main prong, or the 
Red River proper. 

Melish's map, of the date herein before mentioned, lays down 
the North fork as the main prong, and the treaty of limits, also 
referred to, declares that the boundary line shall be. determined 
as laid down in this map. 

In the prosecution, then, of the survey, you will be guided by 
Melish's map, and insist upon the North fork as the main Rio 
Roxo, or Red River, and as the true boundary line, as described 
in the treaty of 1819. 

Should the United States Commissioner insist upon making 
the Ke-che-qui-ho-no, or Prairie-dog -town River, the boundary, 
you will, notwithstanding, co-operate with him in running the 
line — but you will do it under written protest. 

You will in the main be guided by the facts herein before 
stated ; remembering, at all times, that energy, activity and 
harmony are strictly esi^ential to the completion of the work in 
which you are engaged. 

You will report to this Department so soon as you have 
effected a junction with the United States Commissioner, and 
regularly, monthly, thereafter. 

The traditionary history of the Indian tribes along its banks, 
the evidences of Marcy's survey, and the prominent features laid 
down in Melish's map, alike establish the fact that the North 
fork is the main prong of the Red River, consequently the joint 
commission has nothing further to do than to run the line 
according to the treaty of 1819. 

Very respectfully, 

Sam Houston. 



REPORT ON BOUNDARY SURVEY. 



Austin, April 2, 18G1. 
To His Excellency, Edward Clark, Governor of Texas : 

Sir — I have the honor to submit herewith my report on the 
Boundary Survey, between the State of Texas and the territories 
of the United States of America, together with the field notes 
and maps, (marked '' A" and " B "). 

The maps, it will be seen, are made on a scale of one mile to 
the inch ; in their present state they are too large and incon- 
venient for examination, and should be made on a scale much 
smaller. 

It was my intention to have another set naade, by the next 



— 61 — 

regular session of the Legi-slature, but have not time to prepare^ 
it for the adjourned session, though I think "it proper to submit 
my report, and afterward make the above mentioned map, 
should your Excellency deem it necessary. 

I am very respectfully. 

Your most obedient servant, 

Wm. H. Russell, 
Commissioner of Boimdary Survey. 



On the 27th of April, 1860, I had the honor of receiving from 
his excellency. Governor Houston, the appointment of commis- 
sioner to conduct the boundary survey, authorized by "an act 
making provisions for running and marking the boundary line 
between the State of Texas and the territories of the United 
States of America." Approved February 11th, 1851. 

In prosecuting the object of my Commission, I immediately 
repaired to Sherman, Grayson county, Texas, with B, Timmons, 
Esq., of Fayette county, as surveyor to the expedition, to organ- 
ize the boundary party, so as to commence the field work of the 
survey at as early a day as practicable. 

I arrived in Sherman on the 2nd of May, and on the evening 
of the 10th the party was on its way to Red River. 

On the 6th of May I had the honor to receive instructions 
from his excellency, Governor Houston, together with an extract 
from the " treaty of limits between the United States of America 
and the United Mexican States," signed Feb. 22Qd, 1819, and 
confirmed April 5th, 1832, both of which I herewith submit, 
(marked "D"). 

In compliance with the instructions above mentioned, I pro- 
ceeded to join the United States commission, but did not meet 
it until my arrival at Fort Cobb, about 160 miles from Sherman. 

The two commissions remained at Fort Cobb about two weeks 
expecting an escort, but finally had to move on without one, the 
United States preceding the T'^xas commission by two days. 
On the 2nd of June I left Fort Cobb for the intersection of the 
Canadian River, and the 100th meridian of west longitude, at 
which point I designed commencing the survey. 

Arriving at this point, I addressed a communication to the 
United States commissioner, which, with his reply, I herewith 
submit, (marked "E"). 

From this it will be seen that the United States commis- 
sioner declined co-operating with the Texas commission in 
running and marking that portion of the 100th meridian lying 
between the Canadian and Red Rivers. It is true, that a United 
States party had run this line in laying ofif the boundaries of 
the Indian agencies or territories, but as Texas was not repre- 
sented in this work, it was the duty of the joint commission to 
run this line conjointly, as though no survey of it had been 
made. 

I had expressed a willingness and a determination on my part 
to accept the 100th meridian as established by the United States 
party, above referred to ; because, from the evidence I could get, 



— 62 — 

I believed it to be correct, therefore, an apprehension that I 
would insist on a re-determination of the meridian, on part of 
United States commissioner, is entirely unfounded and cannot 
be urged as a reason for declining his co-operation. 

It would be proper to show here that the lOOtli degree of lon- 
gitude, as established, is correct. 

The astronomical determinations on the Mexican boundary 
survey, made by Major W. H. Emory, United States army, are 
justly regarded as a basis for the minor surveys in the interior 
of the continent. The 103d meridian, as established by the 
United States commissioner and my predecessor in office, was 
transferred from one of the determinations above alluded to, and 
afterwards corrected by its prolongation from the Kansas 
boundary survey, as dete'rmined by Colonel Johnston, U. S. A. 
Then as the connection between the 100th and 103d meridians is 
perfect, both directly agreeing with the determinations on the 
Mexican and Kansas surveys, the 100th degree of west longitude 
may be regarded as one of the most accurately established points 
in any of the interior surveys. 

Having determined to accept the 100th meridian, I commenced 
tracing it southward from its intersection with the Canadian 
river, on the tenth of June, and finished it to the north prong or 
main Red River on the thirteenth of the same month. On the 
north bank of Red River the line was marked by a monument, 
fifteen feet in diameter; seven feet high, with a large wooden 
shaft in the center, marked on the north face, "100 W. L.," on 
the east, "In'd. Terr'y.," on the south, " Texas," " Red River," 
and on the west, "Texas, 1860." 

Having completed this portion of the line, I returned with the 
party to the Canadian river, crossed over and encamped on a 
beautiful and bold running stream, which, from the great quan- 
tities of wild currants to be found on it, I have named " Currant 
creek." 

On the morning of the 16th, the prolongation of the 100th 
meridian northward was commenced, and was completed up to 
the parallel of latitude 36 deg. 30 min. on the 19th. 

By referring to the map of the meridian, which I herewith 
submit (marked "A"), it will be seen that the distance from Red 
River to the parallel of 36 deg. 30 min. is eighty-two miles and 
sixteen hundred and twenty-nine feet. 

The country from Red River to Washita river is high, rolling 
and sandy, covered with coarse sedge grass, and is watered only 
by one stream between the two rivers, laid down on the map as 
Sweet Water creek. From whence it derives its name, I am 
unable to say ; certainly not from the properties of its water, as 
it is unpleasant, tasting of the slimy mud along its banks ; it is, 
however, a rapid and never-failing stream. The only animals 
to be found were some few elk on Red River and buffalo on 
Washita river. 

The Washita river is a narrow, clear and bold stream, with 
about six inche* of water and some five feet in width, and is 
sparsely timbered with cotton wood. From this stream to the 
Canadian, the country is generally level and black sandy prairie, 
covered with short nutritious grasses. Crossing the Canadian, 



- 63 ~ 

Whence to fork of Canadian, the country is very hilly and sandy, 
until within a mile or two of the latter stream, when the soil 
becomes dark and showing occasionally prominent outcropping 
of limestone. Northward, as far as parallel 36 deg., 30 min., the 
country becomes more level, is black sandy prairie, and watered 
by one or two small streams, as shown on the map. The timber 
on any of the creeks is so scarce that it is not worthy of note. 

Arriving at the parallel of 36 deg., 30 min., on the evening o-f 
the 19th of June, I found that its intersection with the 100th 
meridian, forming the N. E. corner of the " Panhandle,'" had 
been determined and fixed by the United States party. I ac- 
cepted this point, as established, because there could possibly be 
no doubt of its correctness, as the observations were made with 
a very valuable and costly zenith telescope, for the space of 
near one week. 
****** **** 

About the first of October, I860. I received from the Depart- 
ment of the Interior of the United States a map of the survey 
of the one hundredth meridian, made by the United States party 
hereinbefore alluded to during the year 1859, which, together 
with copies from Melish's map, referred to in the treaty of 1819, 
and in the instructions of his excellency Governor Houston, is 
herewith submitted, marked respectively "F" and "G." 

It will be seen by reference to the map that this survey of the 
one hundredth meridian is extended from the north boundary of 
Seminole country, down through Greer county to Prairie Dog 
Town river, or the South prong of Hed River. This line, as sur- 
veyed from main Red River to the South Fork, is fifty miles in 
length, well defined by earthen mounds, and will eminently 
serve as the western boundary of the above named county. 

The whole distance surveyed — two hundred and forty-nine 
miles three hundred and four feet — lies directjy through the 
heart of the Indian country, yet I accomplished this work (some- 
what hurriedly, it is true), with my party of seventeen men, and 
saw but three hostile Indians on the whole route; though suffi- 
cient evidence that there had been a great number in that sec- 
tion of the country was frequently seen. 
***** ***** 

Wm. H. Russell, 
Commissioner of Boundary Survey. 



MESSAGE OF GOV. 0. M. ROBERTS. 



Executive Office, Austin, January 10, 1883. 

To tlie Honorable Senate aud House of Repro«entative» in Legiilature assembled: 

Having become fully satisfied that the territory of Greer 
county is a part of Texas, I deem it proper to communicate to 
you some of the leading facts and reasons that have convinced 
me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does belong to Texas. 

The question involved in this controversy between Texas and 
the United States depends upon the construction of the treaty 
between the United States and Spain in 1819. 

The language of that treaty is as follows: 

"Art. 3. The boundary line between the two countries west of the 
Mississippi, shall begia on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, 
in the sea ; continuing north, along the western bank of that river, to the thirty-second 
degree of latitude ; thence, by a line due north, to the degree of latitude where it 
strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red river ; then, following the course of 
the Rio Roxo, westward, to the degree of longitude one hundred west from London, 
and twenty-three from Washington ; then crossing the said Red river, and running 
thence by a line due north, to the river Arkansas ; thence, following the course of 
the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude forty-two degrees north ; 
and thence, by that parallel of latitude, to the South Sea ; the whole being as laid 
down in Melish'smap of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to 
the 1st of January, 1818." 

It is now admitted that this line between Red River and the 
Arkansas River has never been located and definitely settled by 
any joint commission appointed by the two countries, nor has it 
been settled by any such commission at what point the line go- 
ing north should cross Red River after it had gone westward 
along said river to the one hundredth degree of longitude, nor 
which one of the two main forks of Red River the line should 
follow up to the point of crossing at the one hundredth degree 
of longitude if it should be found west of the junction of said 
two main streams, which are now commonly designated as the 
north fork and south fork of Red River. 

The efforts made to have these facts settled by joint commis- 
sions, and the surveying of the land between the two forks by 
Messrs. Jones & Brown, under contract with the Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs, dated in 1857, and the consequent claim of the 
United States to that territory, known as Greer county, amount 
to nothing, so far as Texas is concerned. Nor does it comport 



— 66 — 

with the dignity or sense of justice of the United States to 
make such a claim and enforce it by its power in protecting the 
Indian Territory from settlement, without first having the line 
up the Red River, and thence north upon the one hundredth 
degree of longitude, settled by a joint commission, in which 
Texas is fully represented, as it would be done between two inde- 
pendent nations, with equal power to maintain their rights 
respectively. 

It may be admitted that the one hundredth degree of longi- 
tude will be found to cross Red River above the junction of the 
two main streams, and therefore that it crosses both of them. 
A joint commission having found that fact by accurate observa- 
tions, the remaining fact to be found by them would be, which 
one of the two streams from a point at the junction should the 
line run up the river to the one hundredth degree of longitude, 
and thence run north to the thirty-six and a half degree of lati- 
tude north. Texas claims, and I think rightfully, that the line 
would run up the stream now known as the north fork, and the 
United States claim that it should run up the south fork. That 
is the issue between them. 

It is claimed that the line should run up the south fork, be- 
cause it is the broader between its banks, and is the longer 
stream, reaching farther west in+o the staked plain, and is there- 
fore the main Red River. Its broader bed may be attributed to 
the character of earth through which it passes, and to the fact 
that it runs from the head of it to the junction nearly straight 
eastward on a direct line of the declension of altitude. After 
running over sixty miles through a descending canyon from the 
top to the verge of the staked plain, it then falls nearly fifteen 
hundred feet in running through two degrees of longitude to 
the junction. (This is taken from Captain Marcj^'s map.) 

The fact, also, that its source is one degree farther west and 
one degree faither south than the source of the north fork, 
doubtless renders it more subject to those frequent deluges 
called waterspouts that wash out and widen the beds of streams 
throughout Texas the more and more as you go west and south. 
The difference, if any, in ^tlie length of the two streams, from 
the junction to their sources, is very little, perhaps not exceed- 
ing twenty miles. {Captain Marcy's map showing distances in 
going up the north fork and coming down the south fork.) It is 
said, on the other hand, that the water runs down the north 
fork in greater quantity and more constantly than in the south 
fork, whose channel of sand flats is often if not usually dry. 
This is the report of persons who have recently visited and re- 
mained in that region long enough to bear witness to the fact. 
This may be attributed to the fact that its source and that of 
each of its tributaries are from one to two degrees further east, 
and to that extent, being removed from the high, dry plains, 
have more regular seasons of rain to supply it with water than 
the south fork. 

Such considerations as these may be indulged in to ascertain 
which of the two is the main fork, and should, on that account, 
be called Red River. Such considerations would show the Mis- 
souri river to be the true Mississippi river. In this, as in many 



— 67 — 

other matters of dispute, there are egregious errors and miscon- 
ceptions from the mode of stating the question at issue, which 
lead to the investigation of facts wholly immaterial. In present- 
ing the question, it is said, that the line runs up Red River, and 
the south fork heing the main branch, it must run up that stream 
to the one hundredth degree of longitude, 

I have shown how nearly equal are the claims of each to be 
called the main branch, from facts pertaining to them, derived 
from observation. From this either one of tiiem, in the absence 
of the other, would be taken to be the main branch. It may be 
admitted that tlie south fork is the larger and longer, and there- 
fore the riiain branch, in reference to the two nearly equal 
branches of Red River, and that admission does not settle the 
fact that the line must run up that branch. The true question 
is, which one of the two nearly equal branches corresponds 
most nearly with "the Rio Roxoof Natchitoches, or Red River," 
as it was known in 1S19, when the treaty was made, and as 
"laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at 
Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818." It is not 
the south fork, for it is not laid down on Melish's map, and was 
not then known to exist by white men, either Americans or 
Mexicans, who gave any public notice or made any known rec- 
ord of it. Nor was such a fork known to exist before Captain 
Marcy was informed of it by his Indian guide, Beaver, during 
his exploration of 1849, while he was on the head waters of the 
Brazos river. (See report of Captain Marcy.) The Indian 
called it (not Red River, but) Ke-che-a-qua-ho-no," or "Prairie 
Dog Town river." 

This river Captain Marcy afterwards found and traversed in 
his exploration of 1853. In the introduction to his report, he 
explains the extent of all previous explorations, and shows that 
he and liis party were the first to reach and traverse that river. 

Captain Marcy, in this exploration, was instructed to make 
" examination of the Red River and the country bordering upon 
it, from the mouth of Cache creek to its sources." In going up 
from that point he speaks of the two branches being about the 
same size at th^ir junction, and went up the fork now known 
as the north fork, and followed it to near its source. In the re- 
port there is no surprise expressed in finding it where he did. or 
at its course. He had Indian guides and hunters with him, and 
they gave it no Indian name. It was known and called by no 
other name than that of Red River. He traced it to near its 
source, a little north of 35^ degrees north latitude, which he 
found to be about twenty-five miles south of the Canadian river. 
And here he discovered the only thing about Red River that did 
not seem to be known before to some other explorers, which was 
that the upper waters of the Canadian did not run into and 
constitute a part of the Red River of Natchitoches, as they 
were sometimes supposed to do. It was under this false im- 
pression, doubtless, that Melish had laid down the source of the 
most western branch of Red River a little north of the thirty- 
seventh degree of north latitude, which could not have been in- 
tended to represent the south fork of that in its source and 
course. In that map (of 1818) he laid down two forks of Red 



— 68 — 

River, both of which are made to run near each other in a 
southerly direction to their junction, the source of both of them 
being above 36 degrees north latitude. The junction of the two 
is placed a degree west of the one hundredth degree of longi- 
tude. The course of both the streams of the river in going up 
them from the junction turns abruptly northward, very much 
like the north fork now does. There is no stream coming in 
from the west, as does the south fork, nor is Pease river or the 
Big Wichita south of Red River laid down, but the Washita 
north of Red River is laid down. Thus it is obvious that Melish 
had information concerning the streams on the north side of 
Red River and concerning the most northern head waters of 
Red River, but none whatever of the streams coming into Red 
River from the west and southwest. The Big Wichita and 
Pease rivers are large and long streams, and the south fork is 
still larger and longer, and no streams on his map come into 
what he lays down as Red River from the direction they are 
now known to flow into it. 

The fact that Melish placed two branches of Red River close 
together, running nearly parallel from points too far to the 
northwest, might lead to the conclusion that he had some indis- 
tinct information that there were two branches in the then far 
west ; but the manner in which he laid down the more western 
branch, with its source much farther north, iand running down 
in a southern direction, nearly parallel to the other, to the junc- 
tion, shows that the only headwaters of that stream then known 
had their sources in that direction, up towards Santa Fe. 

There were and are two such branches in part. If the most 
recent maps of Texas are examined, since that whole region has 
been explored, it will be found that there are now two streams, 
the North Fork and the Salt Fork of Red River, that are now 
delineated on the map, almost exactly like the two forks in 
Melish's map of 1818, both having a like abrupt bend northward 
in going up them, and a like divergence from parallel lines ; so 
that if the Salt Fork were continued up thirty miles in a north- 
west course it would reach the Canadian at a bend southward in 
that river, and the Salt Fork thus joined to the headwaters of 
the Canadian would present on the map almost exactly such a 
stream as the more western stream is laid down in Melish's map 

of i8ie. 

In his second map (of 1823) he corrected the mistake of run- 
ning the headwaters of the Canadian into a branch of Red 
River, and laid down but one stream of Red River coming down 
from that direction. Humboldt and others supposed that the 
headwaters of the Canadian ran into Red River. 

Melish made his second map in the short period of five years 
afterwards (in 1823), in which Red River is laid down with its 
one main stream pointing still towards Santa Fe, and with its 
source in latitude 35 degrees north. It shows no south fork such 
astound by Captain Marcy. In that map he laid down "The 
Great Spanish Road," one fork of which crossed the Canadian 
and ran down north of Red River to the mouth of the Washita, 
in the direction of Natchitoches. This great Spanish road 
(which, at that day, meant a well known and much traveled 



— 69 — 

mule trail), may explain why the north fork was known as the 
Red River, And no road being laid down as running south of 
the Red River, heading on the 3oth degree of latitude north, 
may explain why the south fork was entirely unknown, except 
to the Indians, perhaps, who called it by a different name. 
Desternell's map of Mexico, used in the treaty of 1848 between 
the United States and Mexico, does not lay down the south fork 
as now known to exist, but at a point about one-half of a degree 
west of the 100th degree of longitude he makes a stream run 
into the Red River, coming in its whole course from the south- 
west, called "Ensenado." The north fork above the junction 
he called ''R, Colorado," which is the Spanish name for Red 
River. 

Stephen F. Austin made a map of Texas, in which its connec- 
tion with the United States and the adjoining Mexican states 
was shown, which was published in 1887, after his death. (A 
copy of this map is in the General Land Office of Texas.) In 
that map Red River is laid down, showing different streams 
coming into it, until, in going up, it reaches the False Washita 
on the north side of it, and the Big Wichita on the south side of 
it, which is laid down very much as it is now found to be ; but 
from the mouth of that stream Red River is laid down as a single 
stream going up northv^estward to the 35th degree of north 
latitude, leaving out entirely any delineation of Pease river 
coming in on the south side above the Big Wichita, and also Ke- 
che-a-qua-ho no, coming in above Pease river, showing that lie 
had no information of those two streams, though he had the 
general idea that Red River bore up to the northwest in going up 
to its source. 

Notwithstanding the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the 
maps, the conclusion is inevitable that both before and after the 
treaty of 1819 it was known that there was a river called Red 
River, whose headwaters were to be found at or above latitude 
thirty-five degrees north, and that it ran from its source, with 
numerous changes in its course, in a southeaster!}^ direction, 
conforming irregularly to a line from Santa Fe, in New Mexico, 
to Natchitoches, in Louisiana, both of which places once 
belonged to Spain, and both of which were for a long time cen- 
ters of trade witii the tribes of Indians in the vast regions of 
unsettled country between them. St. Louis, in Missouri, was at an 
early day such a center, whose trade reached out as far and beyond 
Santa Fe, in Mexico. Nacogdoches, San Antonio and El Paso 
were also, to a more limited extent, such centers of trade. Pre- 
vious to 1818, the date of Melish's map, it must have been from 
explorers, travelers and traders going from these centers into the 
vast country embraced within the circuit which they formed, 
that information could be derived about the country. The names 
given to the rivers and their tributaries, or at least the spelling 
or pronunciation of them, indicated what centers had furnished 
the explorers, travelers and traders who had traversed the dif- 
ferent parts of this extensive interior country, and had given 
information concerning it. Hence in the eastern part of it the 
pronunciation, and sometimes the spelling of the names of the 
rivers and of their tributaries are French, as RioRoxo, Washita, 



— 70 ~ 

Arkansas, Kansas, and in the west and south are Spanish, as 
Pureco or Pecos, Nueces, Guadalupe, Colorado, Brazos de Dios, 
Trinity (Trinidad), Neches and Angelina. At the period spoken 
of there was a large central territory that had never been ex- 
plored, which was inhabited only by the roving Comanche 
Indians, and by other roving tribes. The region south of the 
river, then known as Rio Roxo, was a part of that unknown 
country. Those roving Indians, continuing long afterwards to 
occupy it, and being, as is well known, averse to any white man 
finding it out by traversing it, it remained an unknown country 
until it was explored by Captain Marcy in 1852, when he found 
a river that, he says, had never been seen by a white man, so far 
as known, which had neither a French, nor Spanish, nor an 
English name, but was called by the Indians Ke-che-a-qua-ho-no. 
This he found to be a large stream, running to and forming a 
junction with the stream previously known and named and 
called Red River, or Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, 

The source of that stream, now known as the south fork, is at 
about thirty-four and a half degrees north latitude, and after its 
headwaters collect, it runs nearly in a straight course a little 
south of east to the junction. Melish's map of 1818 exhibits no 
such stream, and it is quite certain that the existence of- such a 
stream was then entirely unknown to white men. It is, there- 
fore, hardly possible that Melish intended to delineate upon his 
map of 1818 the south fork as a part of the river then known as 
Red River. 

In law, as well as in reason, the same rules of construction 
would be applied to a boundary line prescribed to be run between 
two states or nations as to tnat between two surveys of land 
owned by different individuals. In either case, where a natural 
object, such as a stream, i 5 called for and delineated on the map 
and designated by a name, the stream afterwards found to cor- 
respond most nearly with that delineated on the map, especially 
when it could be satisfactorily shown that at the time the line 
was prescribed it was known by the name designated, would 
certainly control in finding the true line It would be imma- 
terial if another longer and larger branch of the same stream 
had afterwards been found and called by that name, and the 
stream indicated on the map had partially lost the name by 
which it was designated. The certainty would be greatly 
increased if it could be shown that the larger stream did not 
correspond in its source and course with the stream delineated 
on the map, was not known to exist for many years after the 
line was prescribed, and when found bore a different name from 
the one on the map, and the one on the map was never called or 
known by any other name than that designated until the larger 
stream was discovered. 

It is unnecessary to discuss the correctness of this proposition 
or to make the application of it to the matter under considera- 
tion. Both are too plain for further discussion. 

When the line may be run under this rule, and with a knowl- 
edge of all the facts, the territory of Greer county, between the 
forks of the two streams, will be found to belong to Texas, 

O. M. Roberts, Governor. 



DOCUMENTARY EXTRACTS. 



OFFERED BY THE 



UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS, 



The following documents are offered by the Commission on 
the part of the United States in substatuiation of their previous 
statements : 

1. Extract from Bean's Narrative, giving the experience of 
Philip Nolan and his followers in 1800, who appear to have been 
the first Americans to have penetrated the country west of 
Louisiana. They met some Indians on the South Fork of Red 
River. 

2. Extract from the account of Long's Expedition, showing 
the ignorance of the geography of the upper Red River prior to 
his explorations in 1819 and 1820, and giving an account of the 
expedition sent out by the United States government from Louis- 
iana to explore this river in 1806. 

3. Extract from the account of Pike's Expedition describing 
one made in 1806. by the Spaniards, under Lt. Malgares, who 
was sent by his government to intercept an expedition from 
Louisiana, and, also, to intercept another party of Americans 
under Pike, who was ascending Arkansas river to discover the 
source of Red River. Lt. Malgares descended the Canadian and 
returned by the Arkansas. 

4. Extract from Humboldt's New Spain, quoted in our first 
statement, also a list of the authorities used in compiling his 
map, and a description of the knowledge, or rather of the igno- 
rance, of the geography of eastern and northern Texas at the 
date of its publication. 

5. Extracts from Darby's Emigrants' Guide, 1818, giving a 
geographical account of "Texas. He confirms the inference 
made in our first statement with regard to the geographical theo- 
ries upon which the maps of Western Texas were based. He 
calls attention to the similarity between the imaginary course 
of Red River and the big bend of the Rio Grande, and deplores 
the utter and absolute ignorance concerning the middle and up- 
per cources of Red River at the time his work was published. 



— 72 — 

6. Extracts from Melish's Geographical Description of the 
United States, intended to accompany his map of 1818, upon 
which tlie treaty was based, in which he states that, for the 
Spanish part, Humboldt's very excellent map was taken for the 
basis, use being made of Pike's travels for filling up some of 
the details, but that important alterations and additions were 
made upon the map, while it was in progress, in order to incor- 
porate the valuable information furnished him by Mr. Darby, 
above mentioned. 

7. Extract from a later edition of Melish's map, dated 1832, in 
which he states that Long's discoveries in 1819 and 1820 "have 
given an entire new view of Red -River. It has not yet been 
explored ; but it is presumed that it rises in the mountains 
southeast from Santa Fe, and runs a south-eastwardly course 
for some time, and then turning eastward, it runs nearly in that 
direction to ihe upper settlements of the United States, to which 
point it has been surveyed." He further states that the Nachito- 
ches is the most remote town in the United States. 

8. Extract from State Papers, containing the statement of 
Louis de Onis to the Secretary of State, Dec. 12, 1818, which 
proves conclusively that the region in question was unknown to 
the framers of the treaty. The representative of the Spanish 
government regarded Melish as an uninformed and interested 
geographer, who run his lines as they were dictated to him, and 
thus disposed of the dominions of Spain as suited his wishes. 

9. Extract from the account of Long's Expedition to the 
Rocky mountains in 1819 and 1820, describing that portion of his 
explorations in which he mistook the sources of the Canadian 
river for those of Red River of Nachitoches. The author states 
nothing was known of the latter at the date of the publication 
of the work, 1823. 

10. Kendall's narrative of an expedition, started from Austin 
in 1841, which, marching north, struck the Pease river, which 
they mistook for the main Red River, but soon discovering their 
mistake, crossed to the main river, which they followed up to its 
source, then crossed the divide to the Canadian, which they 
struck at the Truxillas. 

11. Extract from the report of Capt. Marcy's explorations in 
1849, when, on returning from Santa Fe, he first learned from 
the Indian the names of the two forks of the Red River, by 
whichithey are now designated. 

12. Extract from Capt. Marcy's exploration of Red River in 
1852, which he explored its sources, and discovered that the Ke- 
che-ah-que-ho-no was the main Red River. 

13. Extract from Kennedy's History of Texas, 1841, stating 
that the Brazos was formerly called the Colorado, or Red River, 
and giving an account of the early settlement of San Saba. 



73 



History of Texas from Its First Settlement, in 1685, to Its A.n^ 
nexation to the Untied States, in 1846, by H. Yoakum, Esq., in 
Two Volumes. Redfield, 34 Beekman Street, Neiv York, 1 855. 

Vol. 1, Page 405, Line 39. 

"In about six days' journey we came to Trinity river, and, 
crossing it, we found the big, open prairies of that country. We 
passed through the plains till we reached a spring, which we 
called the Painted Spring, because a rock at the head of it was 
painted by the Comanche and Pawnee nations in a peace that 
was made there by these two nations. In the vast prarie there 
was no wood, or any other fuel than buffalo dung, which lay 
dry in great quantities. But we found that the buffalo had re- 
moved, and were getting so scarce that in three days after 
passing the spring, we were forced, in order, to sustain life, to 
eat the flesh of wild horses, which we found in great quantities. 
For about nine days we were compelled to eat horseflesh, when 
we arrived at a river called the Brazos. Here we found elk and 
deer plenty, some buffalo, and wild horses by thousands. 

" We built a pen and caught about three hundred of those wild 
horses. After some days the Comanche nation came to see us. 
They were a party of about two hundred men, women and 
children. We went with them to the South Fork of Red River 
to see their chief, by the name of Nicoroco, where we stayed 
with them a month. A number of them had arrows pointed, 
some with stone, and others with copper. This last they pro- 
cure in its virgin state in some mountains that run from the river 
Missouri across the continent to the Gulf of Mexico. During 
our stay with their chief, four or five nations that were at peace 
with him came to see us, and we were great friends." Page 403 
says this was in 1800. 

11. 

An Accoiuit of Expeditions to the Sources of the Mississippi, 
and Through the Western Parts of Louisiana, to the Sources 
of the Arkansas, Kansas, La Platte and Pierre Juan Rivers 
* * During the Tears 1805, 1806 and 1807, by Major Z. M. 
Pike. Philadelphia : 1810. 

Page 142, Foot Note: 

" I will here attempt to give some memoranda of this expedi- 
tion, which was the most important ever carried on from the 
province of New Mexico, and, in fact, the only one directed 
northeast, except that mentioned by the Abbe Roynal (in his 
history of the Indies) to the Pawnees — of which see a more par- 
ticular account hereafter. In the year 1806 our affairs with 
Spain began to wear a very serious aspect, and the troops of the 
two governments almost came to actual hostilities on the frontiers 
of Texas and the Orleans territory. At this time, when the 
matters bore every appearance of coming to a crisis, I was fitting 
out for my expedition from St. Louis, where some of the Spanish 



— 74 — 

emissaries in that country transmitted the information to Major 
Merior and the Spanish council at that place, who immediately 
forwarded on the information to the then commandant of 
Nacogdoches (Captain Sebastian Rodrerigues), who forwarded 
it to Colonel Cordero, by whom it was transmitted to the seat of 
governrnent. This information was personally communicated 
to me, as an instance of the rapid means they possessed of trans- 
mitting the information relative to the occurrences transacting 
on our frontier. The expedition was then determined on, and 
had three objects in view, viz : 

" 1st. To descend the Red River, in order, if he met our expe- 
dition, to intercept and turn us back, or should Major Sparks 
and Mr. Freeman have missed the party from Nacogdoches, 
under the command of Captain Viana, to oblige them to return 
and not penetrate further into the country, or make them 
prisoners ef war. 

"2d. To explore and examine all the internal parts of the 
country from the frontier of the province of New Mexico to the 
Missouri, between the La Platte. 

" 3d. To visit the Tetans, Pawnees Republic, Grand Pawnees, 
Pawnee Mahaws and Kans. To the head chief of each of those 
nations the commanding otficer bore flags, a commission, grand 
medal and four mules; and with all of whom he had to renew 
the chains of aftcient amity, which was said to have existed be- 
tween their father, his most Catholic Majesty, and his children, 
the red people. 

"The commanding officers also bore positive orders to oblige 
all parties or persons in the above specified countries either to 
retire from them into the acknowledged territories of the United 
States, or to make prisoners of them and conduct them into the 
province of New Mexico. Lieutenant Don Facundo Malgares, 
the officer selected from the five internal provinces to command 
the expedition, was an European (his uncle was one of the royal 
judges of the Kingdom of New Spain), and had distinguished 
himself in several long expeditions against the Apaches and 
other Indian nations, with whom the Spaniards were at war. 
Added to these circumstances, he was a man of immense fortune, 
and generous in its disposal, almost to profusion; possessed a 
liberal education, high sense of honor, and a disposition formed 
for military enterprise. This officer marched from the province 
of Biscay with 100 dragoons of the regular service, and at Santa 
Fe (the place where the expedition was fitted out from) he was 
joined by 500 of the mounted militia of that province, armed 
after the manner described by my note on that subjet, and 
completely equipped with ammunition, etc., for six months, each 
man leading with them (by order) two horses and one mule the 
whole number of their beasts were two thousand and seventy- 
five. They descended the Red River 2o'3 leagues, met the grand 
bands of the Tetans, held councils with them, then struck off 
northeast and crossed the country to the Arkansas, where 
Lieutenant Malgares left 240 of his men with the lame and tired 
horses, whilst he proceeded on with the rest to the Pawnee 
Republic. Here he was met by the chiefs' and warriors of the 
Grand Pawnees, held councils with the two nations, and pre- 



— 75 — 

senied them with the flags, medals, etc., which were destined 
for them. He did not proceed on to the execution of his mission 
with the Pawnee Mahaws and Kans, as he represented to me, 
from the poverty of their horses and the discontent of his own 
men, but as I conceive, from the suspicion and discontent which 
began to rise between the Spaniards and the Indians. The 
former wishing to revenge tlie death of Villineuve and party, 
whilst the latter possessed all the suspicions of conscious villainy 
deserving punishment. Malgares took with him all ths traders 
he found there from our country, some of whom having been 
sent to Natchitoches, were in abject poverty at that place on my 
arrival, and applied to me for means to retun to St. Louis. 

Lieutenant Malgares returned to Santa Fe the of October, 

when his militia was disbanded ; but heremaindd in the vicinity 
of that place until we were brought in, when he, with dragoons, 
became our escort to the seat of government," 

Page 205 says Pike was captured February 27, 1807, and page 
276 says he reached Natchitoches July 1, 1807. 

III. 

Political Essay on the Kingdom of Neiv Spain, hy Alexander de 
Humboldt. Translated fi om the Original French by John 
Black. New York: Printed and Published by J. Eiley. Ibll. 

*VoL. I, Page 66, Line 19 : 

" It is a false application of the principles of hydrography," 
&c., already quoted in first paper. 

Vol. I, Page 81, Line 25: 

" As to the countries conterminous with New Spain, we have 
used for Louisiana the fine map of the engineer Lafond ; and 
for the United States the fine map of Arrowsmith, rectified from 
the observations of Rittenhouse, Ferrer and Ellicott." 

Same, Vol. II, Page 214, Line 1: 

" In the northern part of New Mexico, near Taos, and to the 
north of that city, rivers take their rise which run into the Mis- 
sissippi. The Rio de Pecos is probably the same with the Red 
River of the Natchitoches, and the Rio Napestla is perhaps the 
same river which, farther east, takes the name of Arkansas." 

Same, Vol II, Page 185, Line 31 : 

"Since the cession of Louisiana to the United States, the 
bounds between the province of Texas and the county of Natch- 
itoches (a county which is an integral part of the confederation 
of American republics) have become the subject of a political 
discussion, equally tedious and unprofitable. Several members 
of the Congress ot" Washington were of opinion that the territory 
of Louisiana might be extended to the left bank of the Rio 
Rravo del Norte. According to them all, the country called by 
the Mexicans the provii ce of Texas anciently belonged to 
Louisiana. Now, the United States ought to possess this last 
province in the whole extent of rights in which it was possessed 



— 76 — 

by France, before its cession to Spain, and neither the new de- 
nominations introduced by the viceroys of Mexico, nor the pro- 
gress of population from Texas towards the east, can derogate 
from the lawful titles of the Congress. During these debates 
the American government did not fail frequently to adduce the 
establishment that M. de Lasale, a Frenchman, formed about 
the year 1685 near the bay of St. Bernard, without having ap- 
peared to encroach on the rights of the crown of Spain. 

''But, on examining carefully the general map which I have 
given of Mexico and the adjacent countries on the east, we shall 
see that there is still a great way from the bay of St. Bernard to 
the mouth of the Rio del Norte. Hence the Mexicans very justly 
allege in their favor, that the Spanish population of Texas is of 
a very old date, and that it was brought, in the early periods of 
the conquest, by Linares, Revilla and Camargo, from the interior 
of New Spain ; and that M. de Lasale, on disembarking to the 
west of the Mississippi, found Spaniards at that time among the 
savages whom he endeavored to combat. At present, the inten- 
dant of San Luis Potosi considers the Rio Mermentas, or Mexi- 
cana, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico to the east of the Rio 
de Sabina, as the eastern limit of the province of Texas, and 
consequently of his whole intendency. 

" It may be useful to observe here, that this dispute as to the 
true boundaries of New Spain can only become of importance 
when the country, brought into cultivation by the colonists o^ 
Louisiana, shall come in contact with the territory inhabited by 
Mexican colonists ; when a village of the province of Texas shall 
be constructed near a village of the county of the Opeloussas. 
Fort Clayborne, situated near the old Spanish mission of the 
Adayes (Adaes or Adaisses), on the Red River, is the settlement 
of Louisiana which approaches nearest to the military posts 
(presidios) of the province of Texas ; and yet there are nearly 
68 leagus from the presidio of Nacogdoch to Fort Clayborne. 
Vast steppes, covered with gramina, serve for common bound- 
aries between the American confederation and the Mexican 
territory. All the country to the west of the Mississippi, from 
the Ox River to the Rio Colorado of Texas, is uninhabited. 
These steppes, partly marshy, present obstacles very easily over- 
come. We may consider them as an arm of the sea which sep- 
arates adjoining coasts, but which the industry of new colonists 
will soon penetrate. In the United States the population of the 
Atlantic provinces flowed flrst towards Ohio and Tennessee, and 
then towards Louisiana. A part of this fluctuating population 
will soon move farther to the westward. The very name of 
Mexican territory will suggest the idea of proximity of mines ; 
and on the banks of the Rio Mermentas the American colonist 
will already, in imagination, possess a soil abounding in metallic 
wealth. This error, diffused among the lower people, will give 
rise to new emigrations ; and they will only learn very late that 
the famous mines of Catorce, which are nearest to Louisiana, 
are still more than 300 leagues distant from it. 

" Several of my Mexican friends have gone the road from New 
Orleans to the capital of New Spain. This road,opened by the inhab- 
itants of Louisiana, who come to purchase horses in the provincias 



— f7^ 

internas, is more than 540 leagues in length, and is consequently 
equal to the distance from Madrid to Warsaw. This road is said 
to be very difficult, from the want of water and habitations; but 
it presents by no means the same natural difficulties as must be 
overcome in the tracks along the ridge of the Cordilleras from 
Santa Fe, in New Granada, to Quito, or from Quito to Cusco. It 
was by this road of Texas that an intrepid traveler, M. Pages, cap- 
tain in the French army, went in 1707 from Louisiana to Acapulco. 
The details which he furnished relative to the intendencyof San 
Luis Potosi, and the road from Queretaro to Acapulco, which I 
traveled thirty years afterward, display great precision of mind 
and love of truth ; but unfortunately this traveler is so incorrect 
in the orthography of Mexican and Spanish names, that we can 
with difficulty find out from his descriptions the places through 
which he passed. The road from Louisiana to Mexico presents 
very few obstacles until the Rio del Norte, and we only begin 
from the Saltillo to ascend towards the table lands of Anahuac. 
The declivity of the Cordillera is by no means rapid there ; and 
we can have no doubt, considering the progress of civilization 
in the new continent, that land communication will become 
gradually very frequent between the United States and New 
Spain. Public coaches will one day roll on from Philadelphia 
and Washington to Mexico and Acapulco. 

"The three counties of the State of Louisiana, or New Orleans, 
which approach nearest to the desert country considered as the 
eastern limit of the province of Texas, are, reckoning from 
south to north, the counties of the Attacappas, of the Opeloussas, 
and of the Natchitoches. The latest settlements of Louisiana 
are on a meridian which is twenty-five leagues east from the 
mouth of the Rio Mermentas. The most northern town is Fort 
Clayborne, of Natchitoches, seven leagues east from the old 
situation of the mission of the Adayes. The northeast of Clay- 
borne is the Spanish Lake, in the midst of which there is a great 
rock covered with stalactites. Following this lake to the south- 
south-east, we meet in the extremity of this fine country, brought 
into cultivation by colonists of French origin, first, with the 
small village of St. Landry, three leagues to the north of the 
sources of the Rio Mermentas ; then the plantation of S. Martin; 
and lastly. New Iberia, on the River Teche, near the canal of 
Bontet, which leads to the lake of Tase. As there is no Mexican 
settlement beyond the eastern bank of the Rio Sabina, it follows 
that the uninhabited country which separates the villages of 
Louisiana from the missions of Texas amounts to more than 
1500 square leagues. The most southern part of these savannas, 
between the bay of Carcusin and the bay of La Sabina, presents 
nothing but impassable marshes. The road from Louisiana to 
Mexico goes, therefore, farther to the north, and follows the 
parallel of the 32nd degree. From Natchez travelers strike to 
the north of the lake Catavuillon, by Fort Clayborne, of Natch- 
itoches ; and from tlffence thev pass by the old situation of the 
Adayes Chichi, and the fountain of Father Gama. An able 
engineer, M. Lafond, whose map throws much light on these 
countries, observes that eight leagues north from the post of 
Chichi, there are hills abounding in coal, from which a subter- 



— fs — 

taneous noise is heard at a distance, like the discharge of artil- 
lery. Does this curious phenomenon announce a disengagement 
of hydrogen produced by a bed of coal in a state of inflamma- 
tion ? From the Adayes the road of Mexico goes by San Antonio 
de Bejar, Laredo (on the banks of the Rio Grande del Norte), 
Saltillo, Charcas, San Luis Potosi and Queretaro to the capital 
of New Spain. Two months and a half are required to travel 
over this vast extent of country, in which, from the left bank of 
the Rio Grande del Norte to Natchitoches we continually sleep 
sub dio." 

IV. 

The Emigi-anfs Guide to the Western and Southwestern States 
and Territories; comprising a geographical and statistical de- 
scription of the States of Louisiana, etc. Accompanied by a 
map of the United States, including Louisiana, projected and 
engraved expressly for this work. By William Dai'by. New 

* York. Published by Kirke & Mercein. 1818. 

Page 83, line 37: 

" Texas is bounded west and southwest by the Rio Grande del 
Norte; southeast by the Gulf of Mexico; east by the State of 
Louisiana, and northeast and north by Red River. Its great- 
est length is from the mouth of the Rio Grande del Norte to the 
sources of Red River, about eight hundred miles; its greatest 
breadth from the northwest angle of the State of Louisiana in a 
southwest direction to the Rio Grande del Norte, five hundred 
miles. Estimated by the rhombs on Melish's map, Texas ex- 
tends over two hundred and forty thousand square miles, or as 
extensive as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Maryland. 
Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. 

"The climate must vary considerably. The mouth of Rio 
Grande del Norte is in 25° 55^ north latitude; the head of Red 
River is in 37° north latitude. According to the information de- 
rived from General Pike, on the high table land upon the head 
waters of the Red and Arkansas rivers the cold is excessive. This 
respectable testimony needs no farther authority to give it cre- 
dence, but if it did need corroborative proof, the proof is af- 
forded by the low temperature experienced on the shores of the 
Mexican gulf. 

"Though, taken as a whole, Texas can not be considered a 
fertile country, yet on so vast an extant there are many very 
fine tracts. Red River will no doubt admit of settlement along 
its whole length. The same may be said of several of the other 
streams; and though the population can not be very compact, 
yet the individuals that compose it may be free and happy. The 
air of this region is, according to every account yet made pub- 
lic, pure serene, and in the highest degree healthful. 

• The pursuits of the people of the interior of the country will 
be, it is most probable, forever pastoral. The soil, the want of 
wood in many places, and remoteness from large commercial 
ports, will all combine to perpetuate the present order of things 
in that extensive and in many respects delightful country. 



— 79 — 

" In point of geological structure Texas is remarkably regu- 
lar. Resting upon the Rio Grande del Norte as a base the coun- 
try lies in the form of an immense triangle, all the rivers con- 
forming to each other in an astonishing degree. Red River and 
the Rio Grande, on the two opposite sides, have great resem- 
blance to each other in their courses and particular bends. The 
intermediate streams for some distance from their sources flow- 
southeast, when gradually turning south they pursue that course 
to the Gr^ilf of Mexico. In this manner flows the Nueces, Guada- 
lupe, Colorado, Brazos a Dios, Trinity, Sabine and Calcasieu. 
The sources of the Mermentau being too far south to admit its 
conformity to the foregoing streams its course is nearly south. 
The JCalcasieu and Mermentau are neither in Texas; their 
names are mentioned here to afford examples of the regular 
formation of the country bordering on the north shore of the 
Gulf of Mexico. 

" We will close this chapter with a review of the northwest 
section of the State of Louisiana. It is within five or six years 
past that much of this country was discovered. This may seem 
almost incredible, but it is really a fact, that, in 1811, consider- 
able streams that flow into the Red and Ouachitta rivers, were 
unknown, except to a few hunters. If this had been the case 
with rivers remote from the Mississippi, the chasm in geography 
would not have excited surprise ; but it is certainly astonishing 
that such water courses should be unexplored as the Derbane, 
Saline of Ouachitta, Saline of Red river, Dacheet, Bodcau, Black 
Lake river, and the Dugdomini, all in the neighborhood of long 
established posts. A glance at Lafond's map of Louisiana, pub- 
lished in 1805, will enable any person acquainted with the real 
features of the country to understand how utterly the country 
upon Red and Ouachitta rivers were unknown at the epoch of 
the publication of the foregoing map. 

*' The government of the United States commenced surveys in 
Louisiana west of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers in 
1805, but did not extend the operations of surveying to the north 
side of Red river until 1813. The author of this treatise assisted 
in performing surveys on each side of Red River, under the 
authority of the United States ; and in addition made extensive 
surveys, on his own account, of many places not embraced by 
the work done by order of the general govetnment, and trav- 
ersed repeatedly the hitherto most imperfectly known parts. 
These circumstances are mentioned here in order to apprise the 
reader of the means taken to procure correct information of this 
valuable country. 

" The northwest section of the State of Louisiana is bounded 
east by the Mississippi ; north by the northernmost part of the 
33rd degree of north latitude north; by a meridian line due south 
from the 32nd to the 33rd degree north latitude west ; by the 
Sabine river southwest ; and by the 31st degree north latitude, 
or Opelousas, south." 

Page 88, line 26 : 

" In the peninsula between Red and Ouachitta rivers rise sev- 
eral small streams, part of which fall into the latter and others 



— 80 — 

into the former. Of those which unite with Red River the prin- 
cipal are Bodcau, Dacheet, Black Lake, Saline and Hietan 
rivers ; the tributaries of Ouachitta are Derbane and the united 
streams of Dugdomini and Little river, entering Ouachitta under 
the name of Ocatahoola river." 

V. 

A Geographical description of' the United States, with the Con- 
tiguous British and Spanish Possessions. Intended as an 
Accompaniment to 3Ielish's Map of These Countries. By John 
Melish. Philadelphia. Published by the Author. 1818. 

Page 10, line 33. 

" In constructi?ig the map, recourse was had to the following 
materials : 

" For the United States. — The various state maps, from actual 
survey, so far as the surveys have extended, aided by much use- 
ful information as to the roads and distances, from Bradley's 
very excellent general map ; and as to the delineation of the 
mountains and style of the work, from Arrowsmith's. Informa- 
tion regarding the territories was principally procured from the 
land office at Washington. The Mississippi river and the higher 
parts of the La Platte, Osage, Arkansas and Red rivers, with the 
adjacent countries, are delineated from Pike's travels. It is a 
tribute of respect, justly due to the memory of that enterprising 
traveler and brave officer, to say that the information furnished 
by him has been of great value to this map, and the memorial 
of his adventures has accordingly been perpetuated by the de- 
lineation of his route upon its surface, not only through 
Louisiana, but also through the Spanish internal provinces. 

"The Missouri river and its various branches, together with 
the Columia and its numerous streams, ahd the Rocky moun- 
tains, are laid down principally from the information communi- 
cated to the world by Lewis and Clark, who performed one of 
the greatest and most important overland journeys ever 
undertaken by man. The light which their researches have 
shed upon the geographical science of North America can not be 
too highly appreciated. Their routes are also delineated on the 
map. The name of Lewis is consecrated to everlasting remem- 
brance among the friends of geographical science, and Clark 
has lived to receive the reward of his intrepidity, by the 
gratitude of his country, in being appointed governor of the 
territory he so perseveringly explored. 

" Before closing this part of the subject, it may be proper to 
notice several important alterations and additions that were 
made upon the map while it was in progress, because this will 
have the double effect of showing the great pains that were 
taken to render the subject complete, and of bringing into view 
the works of several very meritorious laborers in the vineyard 
of geography. After the plan-work was wholly finished, Mr. 
William Darby and Mr. Lewis Bringier arrived in Philadelphia, 
with MS. maps of Louisiana, of great value and importance. 
Mr. Darby's map embraced the whole of the state of Louisiana, 



— 81 — 

principally from actual survey, and more acurate materials than 
had been produced heretofore of the country east of it to Pensa- 
cola, and the country west nearly to the Rio Bravo del Norte. 
Mr. Bringier's map embraced the whole of that part of the 
Missouri territory known by the name of Upper Louisiana, from 
the northern boundary of the state of Louisiana to above St. 
Louis, and from the Mississippi to the 23d degree of west longi- 
tude. An arrangement was immediately formed with these 
gentlemen by which the result of their information was incor- 
porated into this map. The old work was accordingly erased 
from the plates and the new substituted at great labour and 
expense. We may add here that Darby's map, with a descriptive 
volume of new and interesting matter, has been published. 
Bringier's MS. map is in the hands of the author, and being a 
work of great value, particularly as regards the mountains and 
mineralogy of the country it delineates, it will probably be pub- 
lished at no distant period." 

Page 14, line 12 : 

"For the Spanish Part. Humboltd's very excellent map was 
selected as the basis, use being made of Pike's travels for filling 
up some of the details. The valuable charts of Vancouver 
furnished the materials for delineating the western coast and 
California, and some of the details, particularly about the Bay 
of St. Francisco, were procured from the Voyages and Travels of 
G. H. Von Langsdorff, lately published." 

Page 43, line 5 : 

"The Red river rises in the mountains to the eastward of 
Santa Fe, between north latitudes 37° and 38°, and pursuing a 
general southeast course, makes several remarkable bends, as 
exhibited on the map ; but it receives no very considerable 
streams until it forms a junction with the Wachitta and its 
great mass of waters, a few miles before it reaches the Missis- 
sippi." 

VI. 

A Oeographical Description of the United States. witJi the 
Contiguous Countries, including Mexico and the ]Vest Indies ; 
intended as an acconipaniment to 3Ielish\'> Map of these Coun- 
tries. By John Melish. Fhilaaelphia. Publislied by the 
Author. 1822. 

Preface. Line 1 : 

"The first edition of this work was published in ISIG." 

Preface. Line 12 : 

" When the late treatj'- was negotiated with Spain, which had 
reference to the map in fixing the southwest boundary, it was 
determined* to bring forward an entire new edition of the Map, 
exhibiting Florida as a part of the United States, and marking 
all alterations that had taken place in the country, up to the 
time of publication ; and from a conviction that Mexico would 



— 83 ~ 

soon become independent, and would eventually be of great 
importance to the United States, it was determined to add 
another sheet exhibiting a complete view of that very interesting 
country." 

Page 12. line 25 : 

" The boundary line between the United States and the Span- 
ish possessions was fixed by the treaty between this country and 
Spain as follows : 

" 'The boundary line between the two countries, west of the 
Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of 
the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along the western 
bank of that river, to the 32nd degree of latitude, by a line 
drawn due north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the 
Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River; then, following the 
course of the Rio Roxo westward, to the degree of longitude 100 
west from London, and 23 from Washington ; then, crossing the 
said Red Biver, and running thence by a line due north to the 
river Arkansas ; thence, following the course of the southern 
bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude 42 degrees north ; 
and thence, by that parallel of latitude to the South sea. The 
tvhole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, 
published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818. 
But if the source of the Arkansas river shall fall north or south 
of latitude 42 degrees, then the line shall run from the said source 
due south or north, as the case may be, till it meets the said 
parallel of latitude 42"-^ and thence along the said parallel to the 
South sea. All the islands in the Sabine, and the said Red and 
Arkansas rivers, throughout the course thus described, to belong 
to the United States ; but the use of the waters and the naviga- 
tion of the Sabine to the sea, and of the said rivers Roxo and 
Arkansas, throughout the extent of the said boundary, on their 
respective banks, shall be common to the respective inhabitants 
of both nations.' " 

Page 14, line 26: 

" In constructing the map, recourse v/as had to the following 
materials: 

''For the United States — The various state maps, from actual 
survey, so far as these surveys have extended, with compilations 
of others from the best materials extant. The territories were 
principally executed from the surveys of the public lands in the 
United States land office, and other authentic materials in the 
public offices at Washington. Extensive use was also made of 
Lewis and Clark's and Pike's travels for information as to the 
Mississippi "end Missouri rivers and their waters. 

"For the Spanisli Possessions — Humboldt's very excellent maps 
were taken as the basis, and some of the details, particularly in 
the upper part, were furnished from Pike's travels. Improve- 
ments have been made from late Spanish charts and other 
dqcuments." 

Page 38, line 11: 

" The Red River is a very large stream, rising near Santa Fe, 



-^ 8"a — 

about 900 miles northwest from its outlet, and is, for a consider- 
able distance, the southern boundary of the United States." 

Page 302, line 1: 

''Red jKwer rises near Santa Fe, and runs a course a little 
south of east, distant 900 miles to where it passes into this state 
(Louisiana) at the northwest corner." 

Page 380, line 15: 

"Before describing the Canadian river and its branches, it 
may be proper to notice that great researches have been made 
in the country west of the Mississippi, and particularly in this 
section of it, under the auspices of the War Department. Major 
Long and Captain Bell, two very meritorious and enterprising 
officers, belonging to the corps of engineers of the United States, 
explored all the country from Council Bluffs to near the sources 
of the Arkansas and Platte rivers. In returning. Captain Bell's 
detachment descended the Arkansas from the mountain, called 
by Pike the Highest Peak (but which they have called James's 
Peak), downwards; and Major Long's detachment proceeded to 
the southward, with the view of descending Red River. They 
entered the river as laid down by the former maps, and de- 
scended by its banks, but to their great surprise found it con- 
ducted them into the Arkansas. This discovery led to an entire 
new view of the rivers in this quarter, and it is found that four 
large streams exist between the Arkansas and Red River, and 
some of them rise further west than the Red River. 

"The (/anadian Fork, which Major Long descended, rises by 
several branches in the mountains near Santa Fe, and runs a 
general course of about south by east to its outlet, opposite Illi- 
nois river, before mentioned. Its comparative course is about 
GGO miles. 

Canadian Fork, north branch, rises near the Spanish Peaks, 
eighty miles north of Santa Fe, and runs a .u^eneral south-south- 
east course to where it meets the main branch, about twenty 
miles west of its junction with the Arkansas. Its comparative 
course is about 48U miles. 

''Little North Fork, a branch about 220 miles long, falls into 
the north fork on the north side. 

" SoutJi Fork of Canadian River, rises to the west of the 24th 
degree of longitude, and runs nearly an east course to where it 
joins the main branch, near the outlet of the north fork. Its 
length by comparative course is about 350 miles. 

'• These discoveries have given an entire new view of Red River. 
It has not yet been explored, but it is presumed that it rises in 
the 'mountains, southeast from Santa Fe, and runs a southeast- 
wardly course for some time, and then, turning eastward, it 
runs nearly in that direction to the upper settlements of the 
United States, to which point it has been surveyed. Its com- 
parative course from its source to the western limit of the State 
of Louisiana is, by this view, about 220 miles, making the entire 
length 770 miles." 



Page 310, line 16. ■ . , 

* '^ Natchitoches is the most remote town in the United States'. 
It is situated on the southwest bank of the river, 60 miles above 
Alexandria. It is an old settlement, having been established by 
the Spaniards in 1717. Monroe is situated on the east bank of 
Wachita river, about 90 miles northwest of Natchez." 



*"OnRed Riuer. 

Preface, page iv, line 51. 

"The Description having answered a valuable purpose, it was 
determined to bring forward a new and improved edition as 
soon as possible after access could be had to the United States 
census of 1820. This, it was presumed, could be comprised in a 
work of 250 pages; but, on arranging the necessary details, it 
has swelled out to more than 500 pages; and that, too, without 
having a single redundant article." 

VII. 

Louis de Onis, Spanish plenipotentiary, to Secretary of State of 
U7iited States, December 12, 1818. 

" The disastrous expedition of M. de la Salle, the absurd grant 
in favor of Crozat, and the erroneous narratives of travelers 
with maps formed at pleasure, by uninformed and interested 
geographers — such as Melish and others — who ran their lines as 

they were dictated to them, and thus disposed of the dominions 

of Spain as suited their wishes." 

VIII: 

Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Moun- 
tains, performed in the years 1819, 1820, under the command of 
Major S. H, Long, of the United. States Topogi^aphical Engi- 
neers. Li three volumes. London: Printed for Longman, 
Hurst, -Rees, Orme, and Broivn, Paternoster-Eoiv. 1823. 

Vol. II, page 273, line 12: 

"The stream which may be supposed to exist in it for a part 
of the year at least, but which was now dry, runs towards the 
southeast. Having arrived at that part of the country which 
has by common consent been represented to contain the sources 
of the Red River of Louisiana, we were induced by the general 
inclination of the surface of the country and the direction of 
this creek, to consider it as one of those sources; and accord- 
ingly resolved to descend along its course, hoping it might soon 
conduct us to a country abounding in game, and presenting 
fewer obstacles to our progress than that in which we now 
were." 

Same, Vol. II, page 278, line 27: 
, "In the midst of one of the violent storms we encountered in 
passing this trap formation we crossed the point of a long and 



— 85 — 

considerably elevated ridge of amygdaloid, so singularly dis- 
posed as to suggest to everyone of the party the idea that the 
mass had once been in a fluid state; and that when in that state, 
it had formed a current, descending along the bed of a narrow 
ravine, which it now occupied, conforming to all the sinuosities 
and inequalities of the valley, as a column of semifluid matter 
would do. Its substance was penetrated with numerous vasicu- 
lar cavities, which were observed to be elongated in the direc- 
tion of the ridge. Its color is nearly black, and when two 
masses are rubbed together, they yield a smell somewhat like 
the soot of a chimney. These appearances are so remarkable 
that it is not at all surprising these rocks should have been con- 
sidered of volcanic origin; and it is this supposition unques- 
tionably from which has originated the statement contained in 
the late map of the United States by Mellish, that the district 
about the sources of Red River is occupied by volcanic rocks; 
the information having probably been derived from the ac- 
counts of hunters." 

Same, Vol. II, page 281, line 22 : 

"Our morning's ride of sixteen miles brought us to a place 
where the water of the river emerges to view, rising to the sur- 
face of that bed of sand beneath which it had been concealed 
for a distance of more than one hundred miles. The stream is 
still very inconsiderable in magnitude; the water brackish, and 
holds suspended so large a quantity of red earth as give it the 
color of florid blood. The general direction of its course inclin- 
ing still towards the southeast, we were now induced to believe 
it must be one of the most considerable of the upper tributaries 
of Red River. A circumstance tending to confirm this opinion 
was our falling in with a large and much frequented Indian 
traca, crossing the creek from the west and following down 
along the east bank. This trace consisted of more than twenty 
parallel paths, and bore sufficient marks of having been recently 
travelled, affording an explanation of the cause of the alarming 
sc'ircity of game we had for some time experienced. We sup- 
posed it to be the road leading from the Pawnee Piqua village 
c'n Red River to Santa Fe." 

Same, Vol. II, page 318, line 3: 

"In speaking of a country whose geography is so little known 
as that of the region southwest of the Arkansa. we feel very 
Isensibly the want of ascertained and fixed points of reference. 
^Were we to designate the locality of a mineral, or any other in- 
t cresting object, as found twenty or thirty days' journey from 
th'? Rocky mountains, we should do nearly all in our power; 
yet this sort of information would probably be thought vague 
and useless. The smaller rivers of this region have as yet re- 
ceivea no names from white hunters; if they have names among 
the Indu ns, these are unknown to us. There are no mountains, 
hills, or 'ither remarkable objects to serve as points of depart- 
ure, nearer than the Rocky mountains and the Arkansa. The 
river itsjlf, which we supposed to be the Red River of Natchi- 
toches, is a permanent landmark; but it is a line and not a 



— m — 

point; and aids us only in one direction, in our attempts to 
designate locality. The map accompanying this work was pro- 
jected in conformity to the results of numerous astronomical 
observations for latitude and longitude; but many of these ob- 
servations were made at places which are not, and at present 
can not be known by any names we might attempt to fix upon 
them. More extensive and minute examination than we have 
been able to bestow might establish something like a sectional 
division, founded on the distribution of certain remarkable 
plants. The great cylindric cactus, the ligneous rooted cucumis, 
the small leaved elm, might be used in such an attempt; but it 
is easy to see that the advantages resulting from it, would be 
for the most part imaginary. 

"Discussions of this sort have been much insisted on of late, 
and may be important as aiding in the geography of climate 
and soils, but can afford little assistance to topography." 

Same, Vol. II, page 320, line G. 

"We left our encampment at 5 o'clock, the morning fair, 
thermometer at 62°. Our courses, regulated entirely by the 
direction of the river, were north fifty-five east, eleven miles ; 
then north ten east, seven miles ; in all eighteen miles before 
dinner. The average direction of our courses for some days had 
been rather to tlie north than south of east. This did not coin- 
cide entirely with our previous ideas of the direction of Red 
River, and much less of the Faux Ouachitta, or False Washita, 
which, being the largest of the upper branches of the Red River 
from the north, we believed, might be the stream we were 
descending. From observations taken at several points along 
the river, we had ascertained that we must travel three or four 
days' journey to the south in order to arrive at the parallel of 
the confluence of the Kiamesha with the Red River, and we were 
constantly expecting a change in the direction of our courses. 
The confident assurance of the Kaskaias that we were on the 
Red River, and but a few days' march above the village of the 
Pawnee Piquas, tended to quiet the suspicions we began to feel 
on this subject. We had now traveled, since meeting the 
Indians, a greater distance than we could suppose they had in- 
tended to indicate by the admeasurement of ten ' lodge days,' 
but we were conscious our communication with them had been 
made through inadequate interpreters, and it was not without 
reason we began to fear we might have received erroneous im- 
pressions. In the afternoon, however, the river inclined more 
to the direction we wished to travel, and we had several courses 
to the south of east." 

Same, Vol. Ill, page 16G, line 16. 

"Red River takes its name from the color of its water, which 
is in time of floods of a bright red, and partakes more or less 
of this color throughout the year. There can be no doubt the 
coloring matter on which this tinge depends is derived from the 
red sandstone of the salt formation already described when 
speaking of the sources of the Canadian river of Arkansa, 
although no person qualified to give a satisfactory account of 



— 87 — 

the country has hitherto traced Red River to that formation. 
We propose to add some brief notices of important rivers, de- 
rived from the unpublished materials of the exploring- party 
sent out by the government of the United States, in 1806 ; also 
from the notes of Major Long, who visited the upper settlements 
vin 1817 ; not neglecting such additional information from the 
works of Darby, Nuttall and others who have written of 
Louisiana, as may appear deserving of confidence. 

"Red river was explored at a very early period by the French, 
but tiieir examinations appear to have extended no farther than 
to the country of the Natchitoches and the Cadoes; and although 
subsequent examinations have a little enlarged our acquaint- 
ance with its upper branches, we are still unfortunately ignorant 
of the position of its sources, Three years after the cession of 
Louisiana to the United States, a small party, known by the 
name of the 'Exploring Expedition of Red River,' and consist- 
ing of Captain Sparks, Mr. Freeman, Lieut. Humphrey and Dr. 
Custis, with seventeen private soldiers, two non-commissioned 
officers, and a black servant, embarked from St. Catherine's 
landing, near Natchez, on board several barges and small boats, 
with instructions to ascend Red River to its sources. On the 3d. 
of May, 1806, they entered Red River, expecting to be able to 
ascend with their boats to the country of the Pawnee Piqua 
Indians. Here it was their intention to leave their boats, and, 
packing their provisions on horses which they should purchase 
from the Pawnees, they were to ' proceed to the top of the 
mountains,' the distance being as they believed, about three 
hundred miles. 

"On the 19th of May they arrived at Natchitoches, distant 
from the Mississippia 184 miles, 266 perches, measured by log 
line and time. At this place they delayed some days; and, 
having received information that their progress would be op- 
posed by the Spaniards, they resolved to increase the strength 
of their party by retaining a detachment which had been 
ordered by the Secretary of War to join them at Natchitoches." 

Same, Vol. Ill, page 174, line 15. 

"The Spaniards being greatly superior in numbers, and ex- 
pressing a determined resolution to fulfil their orders, which 
were to prevent, at all hazards, the farther progress of the ex- 
' ploring expedition, the officers of that party reluctantly con- 
sented to relinquish their undertaking. The spot where this 
interruption took place is two hundred and thirty miles by water 
above the Coashatay^ village, consequently six hundred and 
thirty-tive miles above the mouth of Red River, 

"Below this point it appears the river and the country lose, in 
a great measure, the peculiar characters which belong to the 
region of recent alluvial lands near the mouth of the river. 
Swamps, bayous and lagoons are less frequent; the forests are 
more open, the trees smaller, and the soil less fertile and open; 
meadows more frequent here than below. A portion of Red 
River above, between this point and the upper settlements, is 
but imperfectly known. 

" The average direction of Red River, as far as it has been 



hitherto explored, from the confluence of the Kiamesha, in lati- 
tude 33° 30\ to its junction with the Mississippi, in 31° 5\ is from 
northwest to southeast. Above the Kiamesha it is supposed to 
flow more directly from west to east. The streams tributary to 
Red River are comparatively small and few in number. Above 
the Washita the principal are the Little River of the South and 
Little River of the North, both entering near the northwestern 
angle of the state of Louisiana, and both hitherto little known. 
The next in order is the Kiamesha, rising in the Ozark moun- 
tains, opposite the Poteau, and entering Red River about one 
thousand miles from the Mississippi. The Kiamesha has been 
explored from its sources to its confluence bv Major Long, who 
first visited it in 1817." 

Same, Vol. Ill, page 176, line 6. 

" Of the Vaseau, or Boggy bayou, and the Blue river, two 
considerable streams tributarj^ to Red River, next above the 
Kiamesha, we have little information. They appear to enter 
like what are called the North and South Forks of the Canadian, 
near the foot of the western slope of the Ozark mountains. 
Above these the principal tributary is the Faux Ouachitta, or 
False Washita, from the north, which has been described to us 
(by Mr. Findlay, an enterprising hunter whose pursuits often 
led him to visit its banks,) as bearing a very near resemblance 
to the Canadian river, of Arkansa. 

"We are as yet ignorant of the true position of the sources of 
the Red River ; but we are well assured the long received 
opinion that its principal branch rises ' about thirty or forty 
miles east of Santa Fe' is erroneous. 

"Several persons have recently arrived at St. Louis, in Mis- 
souri, from Santa Fe, and among others, the brother of Captain 
Shreeves, who gives information of a large and frequented road 
which runs nearly due east from that place, and strikes one of 
the branches of the Canadian, that, at a considerable distance 
to the south of this point, in the high plains, is the principal 
source of Red River. His account confirms an opinion we had 
previously formed, namely, that the branch of the Canadian 
explored by Major Long's party, in August, 1820, has its sources 
near those of some stream which descends towards the west into 
the Rio del Norte, and consequently that some other region must 
contain the head of Red River. From a careful comparison of 
all the information we have been able to collect, we are satisfied 
that the stream on which we encamped on the thirty-first of 
August, is the Rio Raijo. of Humboldt, long mistaken for the 
source of the Red River of Natchitoches, and that our camp of 
September 3 was within forty or fifty miles east from Santa Fe. 
In a region of red clay and sand, where all the streams have 
nearly the color of arterial blood, it is not surprising that 
several rivers should have received the same name ; nor is it 
surprising that so accurate a topographer as the Baron Humboldt, 
having learned that a Red river rises forty or fifty miles east of 
Santa Fe, and runs to the east, should conjecture it might be the 
source of the Red River of Natchitoches. This conjecture (for 
it is no more) we believe to have been adopted by our geogra- 



— 89 — 

phers, who have with much confidence made their delineations 
and their accounts correspond to it." 

Same, Vol. Ill, page 29, line G. 

"At this point, and again at an inconsiderable distance below, 
a soft, green, slaty sandstone forms the bed of the river, and 
occasions a succession of rapids. At noon an observation by 
the meridian altitude of the sun's lower limb gave us 35° 30\ as 
an approximation to our latitude. This was much greater than 
we had anticipated from the position assigned to Red River on 
the maps, and tending to confirm the unpleasant fears we had 
entertained of having mistaken some tributary of the Arkansa 
for the Red River. 

" Thick and extensive canebreaks occurred on both sides of 
the river, and though the bottoms were wide and covered with 
heavy forests, we could see at intervals the distant standstone 
hills with their scattered forests of cedar and oak. 

" September 10 we left our camp at the usual hour, and after 
riding eight or ten miles, arrived at the confluence of our sup- 
posed Red River with another of a much greater size, which we 
at once recognized to be the Arkansa. Our disappointment and 
chagrin at discovering the mistake we had so long labored under 
was alleviated by the consciousness that the season was so far 
advanced, our horses and our means so far exhausted, as to 
place it beyond^our power'toreturn^and attempt the discovery of 
the sources of Red River. We had been mislead by some little 
reliance on the maps, and the current statements concerning the 
position of the upper branches of Red River, and more particu- 
larly by the confident assurance we had received from the 
Kaskaia Indians, whom we did not suspect of a wish to deceive 
us in an affair of such indifference to them. Knowing there 
was a degree of ambiguity and confusion in the nomenclature of 
the rivers, we had insisted particularly in being informed, 
whether the river we were descending was the one on which the 
Pawnee Piquashad their permanent residence, and this we were 
repeatedly assured was the case. Several other circumstances, 
which have been already mentioned, led us to the commission 
of this unfortunate mistake. 

"According to our estimate of distances on our courses, it is 
seven hundred and ninety -six and a half miles from the point 
where we first struck the Canadian to its confluence with the 
Arkansa. If we make a reasonable allowance for the meanders 
of the river and for the extension of its upper branches some 
distance to the west of the place where we commenced our de- 
scent, the entire length of the Canadian will appear to be about 
one thousand miles. Our journey upon it had occupied a space 
of seven weeks, traveling with the utmost diligence the strength 
of our horses would permit." 



90 — 



IX. 



Narrative of an Expedition across the Great Southwestern 
Prairies from Texas to Santa Fe. By George W. Kendall. 
In tivo volumes. London: David Bogue, Fleet street. 

184^. 

Vol. I, page 75, line 14: 

'"All that was known in our case was, that Austin was in 
such a latitude and longitude and Santa Fe in another; of the 
principal part of the country between the two points, not a man 
of us knew anything. That deep rivers were to be crossed, that 
ravines were to be encountered, that salt and dry prairies were 
to be met — in short, that innumerable obstacles would be found 
in our path — were things that every one expected; of the nature 
and extent of these obscacles, all were alike ignorant." 

Vol. I, page 2C}G, line 18: 

" A majority of the map makers, by joining the Red River as 
far as known, with some one of the rivers rising in the Rocky 
Mountains, have made a long and very pretty stream, as seen 
upon their charts. Were they to journey along the line of their 
imaginar}^ river, with the hope of finding the water they have 
traced, I am inclined to believe they would suffer ^much from 
thirst before they had crossed the boundless prairie spreading 
eastward from the outer spurs of the Rocky Mountains." 



Report of Captain B. B. Marci/s Route from Fort Smith to Sonta 
Fe in 1849. Senate Executive Document No. 64, 31s^ Con- 
gress, First Session. 

Page 217, line 4. 

"About thirty miles north of our camp there is a sharp mound 
visible from the hills, about here, and Beaver trlls me that 
directly at the foot of this mound runs the big Witchita, one of 
the principal tributaries to Red River, and thirty miles, in a 
nortiiwest course from that mound, the Red River forks; one 
branch, coming in from the west, is called Ke-che-a-qua-ho-no, 
or "Prairie Dog Town river," from the circumstance of there 
being a round mound upon the stream which has a prairie dog 
town on the top of it. This branch rises in the Llano Estacado. 
The other, or northern branch, is the principal stream, which 
rises in the Salt plains, near the head of Dry river. 

"October 24. — After marcliing GyV miles this morning, we came 
upon the bluffs which border the valley of the main branch of 
the Rio Brazos; we descended about fifty feet by an easy slope 
into the valley, and struck the river at a place where it was 
fordable. It was a much larger stream than I had anticipated, 
being 200 yards from bank to bank, with a current of about four 
miles an hour, and three feet deep in the channel at this time 
(when the water is at a medium stage). Judging from the drift, 



— 91 — 

it does not appear to be subject to a rise of more than five feet 
above its present depth, and does not overflow its banks. 

Same, page 222, line 34 : 

"Disturnell's map of Mexico, etc., upon which the boundary 
between the United States and Mexico is by the treaty defined, 
is one of tiie most inaccurate of all those I have seen, so far as re- 
lates to the country over which I have passed. He makes a greater 
error than most others in laying down the Pecos, and has the 
Colorado, Brazos and Red River all inaC"curately placed. Upon 
the Red River he has a veay large branch coming from far west, 
near El Paso, which he calls " Ensenado Choctaw." This is 
altogether an imaginary stream, as no one who has been in the 
country ever heard of it; neither does any branch of Red River 
extend to v^ithin three hundred miles of the Rio del Norte. 
There are but three principal tributaries to Red River above 
Fort Washita — these are the Big and the Little Witchita and the 
Ke-che-ah-qua-ho-no, but neither flows far from towards El Paso. 
These, with the main branch of Red River and the Brazos, all 
have their sources in extensive salt plains far east of the Rio 
Pecos. Their waters are strongly saline and unpalatable, 
and for a long distance run through a country poorly watered 
and bordered by rugged cliffs and deep ravines." 

XI. 

Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana in the year 1852: 
By Randolpli B. Marcy. Senate Ex. Doc, S3d Congress, 1st 
Session. 

Page 1: 

" Before proceeding to give a detailed account of the expedi- 
tion, it may be proper to remark that during the greater portion 
of the three years previous to the past summer, I had been occu- 
pied in exploring the district of country lying upon the Canadian 
river of the Arkansas, and upon the headwaters of the Trinity, 
Brazos and Colorado rivers, of Texas.. 

"During this time my attention was frequently called to the 
remarkable fact that a portion of one of the largest and most 
important rivers in the United States, lying directly within the 
limits of the district I had been examining, remained, up to that 
period, wholly unexplored and unknown, no white man having 
ever ascended the stream to its sources. The only information we 
had upon the subject was derived from Indians and semi-civilized 
Indian traders, and was, of course, very unreliable, indefinite 
and unsatisfactory; in a word, the country embraced within the 
basin of upper Red River had always been to us a ' terra incog- 
nita.' Several enterprising and experienced travelers had, at 
different periods, attempted the examination of this river, but 
as yet none had succeeded in reaching its sources. 

"Hence it will be seen that up to this time there is no record 
of any traveler having reached the sources of Red River, and 
that the country upon the head waters of that stream have here- 
tofore been unexplored. The Mexicans and Indians on the bor- 



— 92J — 

ders of Mexico are in the habit of calling any river the waters 
of which have a red appearance, 'Rio Colorado,' or Red River; 
and they have applied this name to the Canadian, in common 
with several others; and as many of the prairie Indians often 
visit the Mexicans, and some even speak the Spanish language, 
it is a natural consequence that they should adopt the same 
nomenclature for rivers, places, etc. Thus if a traveler in New 
Mexico were to inquire for the head of Red River he would 
most undoubtedly be directed to the Canadian, and the same 
would also be the case in the adjacent Indian country. These 
facts will account for the mistake into which Baron Humboldt 
was led, and it will also account for the error into which Colonel 
Long and Lieutenant Pike have fallen in regard to the sources 
of the stream which we call Red River. 

"Dr. Gregg, in his ' Commerce of the Prairies,' tells us that 
on his way down the south bank of the Canadian his Comanche 
guide, Manuch (who, by the-by, traveled six hundred miles 
with me upon the plains, and whom I always found reliable), 
pointed out to him breaks or bluffs upon a stream to the south 
of the Canadian, near what we ascertained to be the true posi- 
tion of the head of the north branch of Red River, and where it 
approaches within twenty-five miles of the Canadian. These 
bluffs he said were upon the 'Rio Negro,' which the doctor sup- 
posed to be the Washita river; but after having examined that 
section of country, I am satisfied that the north branch of Red 
River must have been alluded to by my guide, as the Washita 
rises further to the east. It therefore seems probable that ' Rio 
Negro ' is the name which the Mexicans have applied to Red 
River of Louisiana." 

Marcy, same, page 19, line 2. 

"The chief represented the river from where it leaves the 
mountains as flowing over an elevated, flat prairie country, 
totally destitute of wood, water or grass, and the only substitute 
for fuel that could be had was the buffalo 'chips.' They re- 
marked in the course of the interview that some few of their old 
men had been to the head of the river, and that the journey 
could be made in eighteen days by rapid riding; but the accounts 
given by those who had made the journey were of such a char- 
acter as to deter others from attempting it. They said we need 
have no apprehension of encountering Indians, as none ever 
visited that section of the country. I inquired of them if there 
were not holes in the earth where the water remained after 
rains. They said, no ; that the soil was of so porous a nature 
that it soaked up the water as soon as it fell. I then endeavored 
to hire one of their old men to accompany me as guido, but 
they said they were afraid to go into the countr}^ as there was 
no water and they were fearful they would perish before they 
could return. The chief said, in conclusion, that perhaps I 
might not credit their statements, but that I would have 
abundant evidence of the truth of their assertion if I ventured 
much farther with my command. This account of the country 
ahead of us is truly discouraging ; and it would seem that we 
have anything but an agreeable prospect before us. As soon, 



— 93 — 

however, as the creek will admit of fording, I shall, without sub- 
jecting the command to too great privations, pasli forward as 
far as possible into this most inhospitable and dreaded salt des- 
ert. As the Indians, from their own statements, had traveled a 
great distance to see us, I distributed some presents among them, 
with a few rations of pork and flour, for which we received their 
acknowledgments in their customary style — by begging for 
everything else they saw. 

" May 28.~Captain McClellan has, by observations upon lunar 
distances, determined the longitude of our last camp upon the 
creek to be 100° 0' 45', which is but a short distance from the 
point where the line dividing the Choctaw territory from the 
State of Texas crosses Red River. The point where this inter- 
sects Otter creek is marked upon a large elm tree standing near 
the bank; and it will be found about four miles from the mouth 
of the creek, upon the south side, with the longitude (100° 0^ 45") 
and the latitude (34° 34' 6") distinctly marked upon it." 

Marcy. Same, page 21, line 1. 

"May 30. — Captain McClellan returned this morning, having 
traced the meridian of the hundredth degree of west longitude to 
where it strikes Red River. This point he ascertained to be 
about six miles below the junction of the two principal branches, 
and three-fourths of a mile below a small creek which puts in 
from the north upon the left bank, near where the river bends 
from almost due west to north. At this point, a cotton-wood 
tree, standing fifty feet from the water, upon the summit of a sand 
hill, is blazed upon four sides, facing north, south, east and west, 
and upon these faces will be found the following inscriptions: 
Upon the north side, ' Texas, 100° longitude;' upon the south side, 
' Choctaw Nation, 100*^ longitude;' upon the east side, ' Meridian 
of lOO'^, May 29, 1852;' and, upon the west side. Captain McClel- 
lan marked my name with the date. At the base of the sand 
hill will be found four cotton-wood trees, upon one of which is 
marked 'Texas,' and upon another will be found inscribed, '20 
miles from Otter creek.' 

" Red River at this place is a broad, shallow stream, 650 yards 
wide, running over a bed of sand. Its course is nearly due west to 
the forks, and thence the course of the south branch is west north- 
west for eight miles, when it turns to nearly northwest. The 
two branches are apparently of about equal magnitud, and be- 
tween them, at the confluence, is a very high bluff, which can 
be seen for a long distance around. We are encamped to-night 
near two mountains about three miles from the river, and one 
mile west of the head of the west branch of Otter creek, near a 
spring of pure cold water, which rises in the mountains, and 
runs down past our camp. • Our road leads along near the 
creek valley, which is from one to two miles wide, with a very 
productive soil, covered with a dense coating of grass, and skir- 
ted with a variety of hard timber." 

Marcy, same, page 31, line 34 : 

"As we ascend the river, we have conclusive evidence of the 
falsity of the representations of our visitors, the Wilchitas. It 



— 94 — 

will be remembered that they told us that the entire country was a 
perfectly desolate waste, where neither man nor beast could get 
subsistence, and that there was no danger ffom Indians, as none 
ever resorted to this section of Red River. Their statements 
have proved false in every particular, as we have thus far found 
the country well watered, the soil in many places good, every- 
where yielding- an abundance of the most nutrituous grasses, 
with a great sufficiency of wood for all the purposes of the 
traveler. 

"There are several old camps near us, which appear to have 
been occupied some two or three weeks since by the Comanches : 
the grass where their aninals grazed is not yet grown up. 

"Red River, which is about six miles distant from our present 
position is eighty yards wide, with but a very small portion 
covered with water, running over the quicksand bed. The 
banks upon each side are from four to ten feet high, and not sub- 
ject to inundation. The valley is here about half a mile wide 
shut in by sandy bluffs thirty feet high, which form the border 
to a range of sand hills extending back about five miles upon 
each side of the river. The soil in the valley is sandy and ster- 
ile, producing little but scattering weeds and stunted brush." 

Marcy, same, page 37, line 32 : 

"June 13 — Leaving the command this morning encamped 
upon Sweetwater creek, I made a trip to Red River, which is 
about six miles in a southwest direction ; it was one hundred 
yards wide where we struck it, with but a very small portion 
cavered with water, and very much to our astonishment, for the 
first time, upon tasting it, we found it free from salt. Following 
up the stream for about a mile, we discovered that this good wa- 
ter all issued from a small stream that put in upon the north 
bank, and above this the bed of the main river was dry." 

Same, page 53, line 13 : 

Speaking of South Fork, says: "It was here nine hundred 
yards wide, flowing over a very sandy bed, with but little water 
in the channel." 

XI. 

Texas: The Rise, Progress and Prospects of the Eepuhlic of 
Texas. In two volumes. By William Kennedy, Esq. Lon- 
don: R. Hastings, IS Carey Street, Lincoln's Inn, IS41. 

Vol. 1, page 34, line 9: 

" Brazos river and its branches. The distance from Galveston 
inlet to the embouchere of the Brazos is about forty miles 
coastwise. 

"The Brazos de Dios, usually called the Brazos river (on the 
older maps the Rio Flores), rises in the Guadalupe mountains, and 
has a circuitous course, the whole extent of which is computed 
to reach one thousand miles. Like Red River, the waters of the 
Brazos are frequently red, from earthy deposits, and brackish, 
owing to one of its branches running through a large salt lake 



— 95 — 

far in the interior. The name of Colorado would be applied to 
the Brazos with much greater propriety than to the river so des- 
ignated, the waters of which, instead oj being red, as the name 
indicates, are clear, except during or after the periodical rising; 
whereas, those of the Brazos are red and muddy." 

Same, page 167, line 31: 

"The laborers in the mines fled, and were butchered in detail. 
The priest alone escaped, and by a miracle. The holy man having 
fled to the Colorado river, tne waters divided, permitted him to 
pass through, and closed upon the pursuing Indians, consigning 
them to a common grave. After great suffering, the priest 
reached the Spanish mission of San Juan, at that time the only 
settlement on the San Antonio river. The absent soldiers, re- 
turning in a few days to the fort, where lay the mangled bodies 
of their companions, found the banks of the Colorado covered 
with dead Indians, and as they could discern no marks of vio- 
lence upon them, they pronounced it a retributive miracle, and 
named the river 'Brazos de Dios'or 'Arm of God.' In the 
ignorance of after times, it received the name of Colorado, 
which previously distinguished the red and muddy stream now 
known as the Brazos. The proceeding tradition is devoutly 
believed by the old Mexicans about San Antonio; and is a fair 
sample of the monkish legends which in Spanish America usurp 
the place of rational religion." 

Same, Vol. 1. page 38, line 13: 

"No precise information has yet been given to the public 
respecting the country intervening between the Big Washita 
and the head waters of the Red River, which is tra.versed as a 
hunting ground by the Comanche other Indian tribes. 

" A survey and field notes, with other useful manuscript docu- 
ments, liberally furnished for this work by Mr. Charles Edwards 
of New York, enable me to throw soine additional light on the 
topography of this little explored region." 

XIII 

United States Statutes at Large, JfSd Congress, 1873-1875. Re- 
vised Statutes relating to District of Columbia and Post 
Roads. Public Treaties. , 

Page 474, line 24. 

"Article 1. The dividing limits of the respective bordering 
territories of the United States of America and the United Mex- 
ican States being the same as were agreed and fixed upon by the 
above mentioned treaty of Washington, concluded and signed 
on the twenty-second day of February, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and nineteen, the two high contracting parties 
will proceed forth witli to carry into full effect the third and 
fourth articles of said treaty, which are herein recited as fol- 
lows: 

"Article 2. The boundary line between the two countries 



— 96 — 

tvest of the Mississippi shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the 
mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along 
the western bank of that river to the thirty-second degree of 
latitude; thence by a line due north to the degree of latitude 
where it strikes tlie Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River; 
then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree 
of longitude one hundred west from London, and twenty-three 
from Washington; then crossin-g the said Red River and running 
thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas; thence follow- 
ing the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its 
source, in latitude forty-two north; and thence by that parallel 
of latitude to the South sea: the whole being as laid down in 
Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, 
improved to the first of January, one thousand eight hundred 
and eighteen. But if the source of the Arkanssas river shall be 
found to fall north or south of latitude forty-two, then the line 
shall run from the said source due south or north, as the 
case may be, till it meets the said parallel of latitude forty -two, 
and thence along the said parallel to the South sea, all the 
islands in the Sabine, and the said Red and Arkansas rivers, 
throughout the course thus described, to belong to the United 
States of America; but the use of the waters and the navigation 
of the Sabine to the sea, and of the said rivers Roxo and Ar- 
kansas, throughout the extent of the said boundary on their 
respective banks, shall be common to the respective inhabitants 
of both nations. 

"The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce 
all their rights, claims and pretensions to the territories de- 
scribed by the said lines; that is to say, the United States hereby 
cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever all their 
rights, claims and pretensions to the territories lying west and 
south of the above described line; and, in like manner, His 
Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, 
claims and pretensions to any territories east and north of the 
said line; and, for himself, his heirs and successors, renounces 
all claim to the said territories forever." 

Article 3. (Provides for commissioners and surveyors to 
meet at Natchtoches, within one year to run out and mark the 
line.) 

Page 754, line one : 
" Convention betiveen the United States of America and the Re- 
public of Texas, for marking the boundary betiveen them. 

"Whereas, The treaty of limits made and concluded on the 
twelfth day of January, in the year of our L(jrd, one thousand, 
eight hundred and twenty eight, between the United States of 
America on the one part and the United Mexican States on the 
other, is binding upon the Republic of Texas, the same having 
been entered into at a time when Texas formed a part of the 
United Mexican States ; 

•'And, Whereas, It is deemed proper and expedient, in order 
prevent future disputes and collisions between the United States 



— 97 — 

and Texas in regard to the boundary between the two countries 
as designated by the said treaty, that a portion of the same 
shoukl be run and marked without unnecessary delay ; 

" The President of the United States has appointed John For- 
syth their plenipotentiary, and the President of the Republic of 
Texas has appointed Memucan Hunt its plenipotentiary ; 

" And the said plenipotentiaries having exchanged their full 
powers, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles : 

" Article 1 Each of the contracting parties shall appoint a 
commissioner and surveyor, who shall meet before the termina- 
tion of twelve months from the exchange of the ratifications of 
this convention, at New Orleans, and proceed to run and mark 
that portion of tiie said boundary which extends from the mouth 
of the Sabine, where that river enters the Gulf of Mexico, to 
the Red River, They shall make out plans and keep journals of 
their proceedings, and the result agreed upon by them shall be 
considered as part of this convention, and shall have the same 
force as if it were inserted therein. The two governments will 
amicably agree respecting the necessary articles to be furnished 
to those persons, and also as to their respective escorts should 
such be deemed necessary, 

"Article 2. And it is agreed that until this line shall be maked 
out, as is provided for in the foregoing article, each of the con- 
tracting parties shall continue to exercise jurisdiction in all terri- 
tory over which its jurisdiction has hitherto been exercised ; and 
that the remaining portion of the said boundary line shall be 
run and marked at such time hereafter as may suit the conven- 
ience of both of the contracting parties, until which time each 
of the said parties shall exercise, without the interference of the 
other, within the territory of which the boundary shall not have 
been so marked and run, jurisdiction to the same extent to which 
it has been herefore usually exercised, 

" Article 4. The present convention shall be ratified, and the 
ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington, within the term 
of sixmonths from the date hereof, or sooner if possible, 

" In witness whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, 
have signed the same, and have hereunto affixed our respective 
seals. 

" Done at Washington, this twenty-fifth day of April, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, 
in the sixty-second year of the independence of the United 
States of America, and in the third of that of the Republic of 
Texas. 

John Forsyth, [l, s.] 
Memucan Hunt, [l, s,J 



INDEX TO .THE ARGUMENTS. 



The arguments as bound in this volume do not ail occur in the 
order in which they were delivered. The printing was ordered 
by several parties, and was done in some confusion. The first 
argument of the Texas Commission, by a mistake in printing, 
was not paged in conformity with the other arguments, and for 
that reason is made to follov/ them, and will be found just pre- 
ceding the final argument of the United States Commission. 

The several arguments occur in the book in the following 
order : 

PAGE. 

1. First argument of United States Commission 09 

2. Argument of Texas Commission on the proposition that 

the boundary line in question should be as laid down 

in Melish's Slap 107 

3. Review of argument of United States Commission, and 

citation of legal authorities by Texas Commission 123 

4. Views of Commissioner Brackenridge (following 

page 151) 152 

5. First argument of Texas Commission, following views 

of Commissioner Brackenridge, and preceding final 
argument of United States Commission 

6. Final argument of United States Commission 



./, 



ARGU MENT 



OFFERED BY THE 



Commissioners for the United States. 



Office op Joint Commission on Boundary 
Between the United States and State of Texas, 
Austin, Texas, June 21, 188G. 

Mr. J. T. Brackenridge, Chairman Texas Boundary Commission: 

Sir : — At the meeting of March 4, 1886, we stated our opinion 
that the Prairie Dog Town Fork should be regarded as the true 
Red River designated in the treaty, and gave as our reason for 
this belief the fact that the branches of Red River were wholly 
unknown to the framers of the treaty and the author of the 
treaty map (as stated by Governor Ireland in his letter to the 
Secretary of War); and that, from its physical features, the 
Prairie Dog Town fork should be regarded as the main stream, 
and that it corresponds more closely than the other with the 
boundary as laid down on the treaty map. 

We then asked from the Texas commissioners a statement as 
frank and explicit as ours upon these points and others that ap- 
pear to them to bear upon the problem before us, in order that 
we may bring ouk differences within as narrow a scope as pos- 
sible, and thereby reduce the labor and expense of the field opera- 
tions necessary to decide them. 

In reply, the commissioners, on the part of Texas, submitted 
certain positions assumed as conceded and requiring no proof, 
and reasserted and denied those of our issues from which they 
dissent, and submit the issues and claims of Texas to be sup- 
ported by evidence and argument. 

In reply, we said that we would "be glad to hear and consider 
any evidence that would tend to show that this (North) fork was 
so designated," and explain to what extent we agreed with their 
assumptions, and offered certain documentary evidence in sup- 
port of our assertions, and invited them to co-operate with us in 
the necessary field operations to verify the map, to determine 
which was the main stream, to find its intersection with the me- 
ridian, and mark the corner of the boundary at that point. , • o g 'w O 



PSOK 

F.fi.JMACMAJNUaai 



— 100 



To this the Texas commissioners answered that they had de- 
nied certain of our propositions, not because tliey might not be 
true, but because Texas was never a party to any survey made 
to determine them, and submitted that, if now for tlie first time, 
the Joint Commission were called upon to examine the Red 
River, embracing the said two forks, and to the sources thereof, 
and no names had been applied thereto, and the single fact was 
to be found, which was the main stream of Red River, then the 
ordinary rules applied to all rivers would govern; the greater 
width of the stream, length, flow of water, and area drained 
would be held the main river, and. no doubt, this finding would 
be unanimous. They said the real question is, was the North 
Fork laid down on Melish's map, or was Prairie Dog Town river — 
which was known by the framers of the treaty? Which was 
known prior to that time? Which was laid down on Melish's 
map? Then, as the commissioners on the part of Texas consider 
it impossible to now, and for some time, offer the necessary evi- 
dence to support the issue presented, because the evidence 
desired is found in histories, treaties, official correspondence, 
messages, reports of officers, committees, oral evidence, maps 
and charts, requiring time to collect, select, arrange and print 
the same, so it can be offered in consecutive order and reduced 
in volume ready for use; and as they were unwilling to go into 
the field until this work had been completed, the Joint Commis- 
sion, at their demand, adjourned until the 15th day of June. 

Since the joint commission has re assembled both parties have 
presented the evidence that has been collected, which we will 
now review in its bearings upon the several issues that have been 
formulated. 

First. Our assertion that the Prairie Dog Town fork of Red 
River is and v^^as the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River de- 
scribed in the treaty of 1819, it is denied, and on the contrary, it 
is alledged and claimed on the part of Texas tliat the true Rio 
Roxo of Natchitoches, or ' Red River,' described in the said 
treaty and delineated in Melish's map, v/as what was named 
and styled the North Fork of Red River for the first time in 
1852 by Captain R. B. Marcy, and has since been so called. Be- 
cause said stream was at the date of said treaty, and for a long 
time prior thereto, well known to civilized man, and was, in 
fact, delineated on Melish's map, constituting part of the treaty, 
as the Rio Roxo, or Red River ; and the true boundary line was 
intended to follow the course of said stream until the one hun- 
dredth degree of west longitude crossed it, and not the Prairie 
Dog Town fork, which was unknown to civilized man at the 
date of the treaty, was not discovered till 1852, and was never 
delineated on any map until Captain R. B. Marcy, who discov- 
ered said stream, made his report thereof. 

It is upon this issue that Texas bases claim for the North 
Fork as the boundary line, and we will consider the propositions 
involved therein by examining all the evidence that bears 
upon them. 

First. They claim that the North Fork was at the date of the 
treaty, and for a long time previous, well known to civilized 



— 101 — 

man, and was, in fact, delineated on Melish's map as the Rio 
Roxo or Red River. 

On this point Dr. James, the author of the account of Long's 
expedition published in 18Ji3, says the Red River was explored 
at a very early period by the French, but their examinations ap- 
pear to have extended no furtner tlian to the country of the 
Natchitoches and theCaddoes; and although subsequent examin- 
ations have a little enlarged our acquaintance with its upper 
branches, we are still, unfortunately, ignorant of the position of 
its sources. 

The expedition of i80G, sent out by the American government 
to ascend the Red River to its sources was intercepted near the 
boundary of Louisiana by the Spaniards, whose policy it was to 
keep the Americans in total ignorance of that region. Another 
party of Spaniards, sent out at the same time from Santa Fe, 
under Muljures, were ordeied to intercept the above expedition, 
and that of Major Pike, who was exploring from St. Louis to 
Santa Fe. He descended the Canadian, which he mistook for 
the Red River, and then crossed over to the Arkansas. He cap- 
tured some American traders from St. Louis and took them with 
him on his return to Santa Fe, in order that they might not take 
back any information about the country. Major Pike and his 
companions were also captured, taken into Mexico, and returned 
under guard via San Antonio to Natchitoches. 

We have already quoted the views of Baron von Humboldt, 
who, in his New Spain, published in 1811, says that in New 
Mexico the rivers about Taos were supposed to be the sources of 
the Red River of Natchitoches, showing that the natives of New 
Mexico were utterly ignorant of this region. He further says, 
all the country to the west of the Mississippi, from the Ox river 
to the Rio Colorado of Texas, is uninhabited. 

In reference to the supposition that the North Fork was ac- 
tually delineated in Melish's map, we will simply quote the 
statement of Mr. Melish himself, in the manual intended as an 
accompaniment to this map, published in 1818: "For the Span- 
ish part Humboldt's very excellent map was selected as the 
basis, use being made of Pike's Travels for filling up the de- 
tails." He also says that after the plan work was wholly 
finished Mr. Darby and Mr. Bringer arrived in Philadelphia 
with MS. maps of Louisiana of great importance. The old 
work was erased from the plates and the new substituted at 
great labor and expense. We have already explained at length 
how little Humboldt knew of this region, and a comparison of 
the^treaty map with the true delineation of the country, as ex- 
hibited in the black and red map that accompanied our first 
statement, showed how little Mr. Melish knew about it, but if 
this comparison, and the statements of those whom he explicitly 
names as his authorities, can leave any doubt on the question, a 
siibsequent edition of his work, published in 1822, sets the matter 
forever at rest. 

Speaking of Long's expedition he says: "This discovery led to 
an entire new view of the rivers in this quarter, and it is found 
that four large streams exist between the Arkansas and Red 
rivers, and some of them rise further west that the Red River," 



— 102 — 

And again he says : "These discoveries have given an entires 
new view of Red River. It has not yet been explored, but it is- 
presumed that it rises in the mountains southeast from Santa Fe 
and runs a southeastwardly course for some time, and then turn- 
ing eastward it runs nearly in that direction to the upper settle- 
ment of the United States, to which point it has been surveyed." 
Accordingly, in 1823 he issued a new map, which has been 
presented as a part of the evidence. 

With regard to Pike's travels it is only necessary to say that 
after ascending the Arkansas to its sources he discovered a 
stream which was mistaken successively for the sources of the 
Platte, the Yellowstone, the Lewis Fork of the Columbia, and 
the Colorado of the West, but which finally proved to be the 
sources of the Rio Brovo del Norte. Here he was captured and 
closely guarded, to keep him from obtaining any information 
about the upper course of the Red River. His own map, pub- 
lished after his return, would alone be sufficient to show his 
ignorance. Mr. Darby, for whom Melish altered his plate, said 
in his Emigrant's Guide to accompany his map of 1818: "'We will 
close this chapter with a review of the northwest section of the 
State of Louisiana. It is within five or six years past that much 
of this country was discovered. This may seem almost incredi- 
ble, but it is really a fact that in 1811 considerable streams that 
flow into the Red and Ouachitta rivers were unknown except to 
a few hunters. 

"A glance at Lafon's map of Louisiana,published in 1805, will 
enable any person acquainted with the real features of the 
country to understand how utterly the country upon Red and 
Ouachita rivers were unknown at the epoch of the publication 
of the foregoing map." 

Upon this subjert Kendall, in his account of an expedition 
from Austin to Santa Fe, in 1841, says: 

"All that was known in our case was that Austin was in such 
a latitude and longitude, and Santa Fe in another. Of the prin- 
cipal part of the country between the two points not a man 
among us knew anything. That deep rivers were to be crossed, 
that ravines were to be encountered, that salt and dry prairies 
were to be met; in short, that innumerable obstacles would be 
found in our path, were things that every one expected; of the 
nature and extent of these obstacles all were alike ignorant." 

And again he says: 

"A majority of map makers, by joining the Red River as far 
as known with some one of the rivers rising in the Rocky moun- 
tains, have made a long and very pretty stream, as seen upon 
their charts; were they to journey along the line of their imagi- 
nary river I am inclined to believe the}'^ would suffer much from 
thirst before they had crossed the boundless prairie spreading 
eastward from the outer spurs of the Rocky mountains." 

General Marcy says up to the date of his expedition the coun- 
try embraced within the basin of the Red River had always 
been to us a ten-a incognita, and gives a very interesting ac- 
count of all the vain attempts that have been made to explore 
it. 



— 103 — 

At the meeting held last spring the commissioners from Texas 
were inclined to the belief that the North Fork was well known 
to civilized man at the time of the treaty, and asked for three 
months' time to collect and arrange information in support of 
this and other points upon which the views of the joint com- 
mission were not then unanimous. We will now review the 
evidence they have presented and consider its bearing upon this 
first proposition. 

An examination of the maps confirms our former opinion. 
The statements of residents of Texas, some of whom had visited 
the country between the two forks, establishes the fact that in 
1843 an expedition was sent out from Texas to intercept Mexi- 
can traders between Santa Fe and St. Louis. The leaders of 
this expedition were well posted in the terms of the treaty of 
1810, and took a deep interest in the matter which is now before 
our commission, and the Indians employed as their guides ap- 
pear to have coincided with their views. 

General Marcy, who explored the sources of the Red River in 
1852, appeared before the commission on the 2Gth of February, 
at the request of the commissioners from Texas. He says: "The 
detailed account of my exploration of Red River, with descrip- 
tions of the country through which it flows, will be found in my 
report which is before the commission, and to which I beg leave 
to refer. As the time that has elapsed since I made that explo- 
ration (33 years) is so great, many of the facts and events con- 
nected therewith have passed from my memory." We have 
already referred to this report, which shows that the country in 
question was unknown up to the date of his exploration. In his 
evidence he says: "I regarded the Prairie Dog Town branch as 
the main Red River, for the reason that its bed was much wider 
tlian that of the North Fork, although the water only covered a 
small portion of its bed, and as the sandy earth absorbed a good 
deal of the water after it del)ouched from the canyon through 
which it flows, it may not contribute any more water to the 
lower river than the North Fork." He further says: "I have 
this morning for the first time seen a copy of that portion of 
Melish's map of the United States embracing the part of the Red 
River country v^^hich the commission has under consideration at 
this time, which is authenticated by the signature of the Secre- 
tary of State of the United States." 

This hasty examination led General Marcy to suppose that the 
tortuous stream descending from Taos was intended to repre- 
sent the North Fork of Red River, and the San Saba river to 
represent the Prairie Dog Town fork. We have already explained 
the cause of Melish's error in regard to the upper Red River, 
and have shown that the country about San Saba was well 
known, and tliis was, in fact, the only point in thisneighborliood 
that was properly located. An examination of the black and 
red map will make it clear that Melish intended the stream 
marked San Saba river to represent the true San Saba river 
with which it nearly coincides, and it is unnecessary to assume 
an error of 500 miles in its location, but it only just to General 
Marcy to state that his opinion was based upon the examination 
of a tracing of a very small fragment of the treaty map, which 



— 104 — 

was not provided with a scale of miles, and it is the true upper 
course of the Red River as thereon delineated, corresponded 
more nearly in i^eneral direction with the North Fork than with 
the Prairie Dog Town fork. 

The commissioners from Texas have embodied the remainder 
of their researches in a printed pamphlet, which is entitled: 
"Evidence Pertaining to the Boundary between the United 
States and Texas." 

The first article consists of extracts from the correspondence 
between the United States and the Spanish government pre- 
ceding the treaty of 1819. These extracts are probably intended 
to show v/hat was known of the country by the framers of the 
treaty. This point may be further elucidated by the following 
quotation from one of the letters referred to: 

Luis de Onis to secretary of state, December 12, 1818: "The 
disastrous expedition of M. de la Salle, the absurd grant in favor 
of Crozat. and the erroneous narratives of travelers with maps 
formed at pleasure by uninformed and interested geographers — 
such as Melish and others — who ran their lines as they were 
dictated to them, and thus disposed of the dominions of Spain 
as suited their wishes." 

The second article treats of the wandering of ancient ex- 
plorers " up and down through the woods" and prairies west of 
the Mississippi. 

The third article is a very interesting paper, now, we believe, 
first published in the English language, and which appears to 
have escaped the diligent and patient researches of Baron Von 
Humboldt and of all subsequent geographers. It forms a valua- 
ble contribution to the literature which has been accumulated on 
this subject It is an iteneracy, diary, etc., of a journey of dis- 
covery from the province of Neiv Mexico to Natchitoches, by 
Francisco Xavier Fragoso, in 1788. 

By platting this itineracy it will be seen that he struck the 
sources of the main fork, and followed down the Red River for 
one hundred and five leagues, wliich brought him to the neigh- 
borhood of the Cross Timbers and the Trinity river. Besides 
these land marks he also mentions the Sabine river, which he 
touched l)efore reaching Natchitoches. The accuracy with 
which the Rio Blanco coincides with tlie true position of the Red 
River, inckiding the Main, or Prairie Dog Town fork is quite 
remarkable when we consider the lack of means at liis disposal 
for determining his position. The location of the Cross Timbers 
and of the Trinitj and Sabine rivers, coincides very nearly with 
the results of modern surveys. 

The next four articles give an account of the expedition of 
Major Pike. We have already alluded to the failure of his expe- 
dition. A statement of the Spaniards, that " they had guides 
and routes of traders" to conduct Pike down Red River is printed 
in italics and small capitals in the pamphlet. We have explained 
that these routes lay along the Mora and the Canadian rivers, 
which Mulgares himself mistook for the upper course of the Red 
River, 

The remaining articles consist of extracts from the report of 



— 105 — 

Captain Marcy and statements and opinions of Governor Pease 
and other gentlemen of Texas. 

The second proposition involved in the first issue is that the 
Prairie Dog Town fork was vuiknown to civilized man at the 
date of the treaty, was not discovered till 1852, and was never 
delineated on any map until Captain R. B. Marcy, who dis- 
covered said stream, made his report thereof. It is not neces- 
sary to comment on this proposition, inasmuch as the commis- 
sioners from Texas have changed their views about it since the 
issues were formulated and have introduced sworn testimony to 
prove the contrary. 

We have already expressed our views with regard to the denial 
that the one hundredth degree of west longitude crosses thePrairie 
Dog Town fork up Red River west of its junction with the North 
Fork of Red River as ascertained by observations and surveys 
made by different parties and under different conditions. The 
Texas commissioners denied this issue in order to reserve the 
right at any time during the progress of these proceedings to 
offer evidence and argument in support of said meridian being 
located according to Melish's map made a part of the treaty. 
As they have offered no evidence on this point it requires no 
further comment. 

It seems to us then that the only point upon which there can 
be any further issue is whether or not the North Fork was well 
known to the framers of this treaty, and thj3 evidence on this 
point may be summed up as follows: 

The early explorers were lost west of the Mississippi and could 
not have furnished very definite information to the framers of 
the treaty. 

Francisco Xavier Fragoso explored the Prairie Dog Town fork 
or main fork in 1788, but bis discoveries were forgotten. 

Mulgares took the Canadian for the Red River. 

The Texans laid a claim to the land in question at an early 
date, and sent an expedition there in 1843, and perphaps the 
Indians in their employ fell into this view, but we cannot see 
that their opinions throw any light upon the knowledge possessed 
by the framers of the treaty. 

Humboldt delineates the course of the Red River to conform 
to geogniphical theories based on a wrong assumption of the 
position of its source, and says the country was unexplored. 

Pike knows notliingof the country, and never visited it. 

Darby says it was unknown, except it in its lower course. 

Melish says he derived his knowledge from Humboldt, Pike 
and Darby, and in 1822 ^ays the country has not yet been ex- 
plored, etc. 

De Onis complains that Melish was totally uninformed about 
this region. 

Dr. James, author of theaccount of Long's expedition, says that 
river was unknown, except in its lower course. 

All of which seems to us to prove most conclusively that 
nothing was known of the upper courses of the Red River, either 
by Mr. Melish or by the framers of the treaty of 1819, and hence 
it cannot be claimed that either ihe North Fork or the Prarie 



— 106 — 

Dog Town fork was delineated on the map; nor can it be main- 
tained that either was intended in the treaty. 

There being no reason, then, as far as the treaty is con- 
cerned, for taking one fork more than the other as boundary, 
the question is resolved simply to this: Which branch should 
properly be considered as the prolongation of the lower river, 
or, in other words, which branch is Red River. 

For the reasons given in our first statement, the commissioners 
on the part of the United States believe this to be the Prairie 
Dog Town fork, and not the North Fork, and maintain that the 
boundary should be marked accordingly. 

S. M. Mansfield, 
Major of Engineers and Brevet Lieut. Col. U. S. A., 
Chairman United States Commission. 



—107— 



ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT OF TEXAS COMMISSIONERS. 



proposition: 

The Boundary is the lOO/'/i Meridian as laid down on Melish^s Maji, 
luhether the true 1 00th Meridian or not, and lies east of the Junction of the North 
and South Forks of Red River. 

Austin, June 26, 1886. 
To Col. S. M. Mansfield, President of the Boundary Commission on part of the United States : 

Sir — The undersigned Commissioners on the part of Texas beg leave to 
submit to the Joint Commission the following additional views for the con- 
sideration of the Commission in connection with what was submitted on 
yesterday: 

While the Texas Commission consider that under the facts and for the 
reasons presented the United States are estopped from claiming that the 
Prairie Dog Town River is the Rio Roxo of the treaty between Spain and 
the United States, and from claiming that any stream south and west of the 
North Fork of Red River is that river, the undersigned members of the 
Commission on the part of Texas wish to say in addition to the report here- 
tofore submitted, that if it should be held by any competent authority that 
such is not the case, and that the whole question (as to where the original 
line of boundary from the Red River to the Arkansas should be estab- 
lished according to the terms of the Treaty) is now open as an original 
question, without respect to any such estoppel, then they have this explan- 
ation to make of their second and third propositions and argument, to-wit: 

Those propositions were based upon the assumption of the Commission 
on the part of the United States that the true meridian of the lOOth degree 
of west longitude was the line intended by the treaty makers as the line of 
boundary between the rivers Ai'kansas and Red, without respect to the line 
of that meridian as it was laid down on Melish's map; and farther, 
upon the consideration, that Sec. 2nd of the Act of the Legislature of Texas 
providing for the appointment of the Commission seems to require that 
meridian to be marked by the Commission, whether it be the meridian " as 
laid down in Melish's map" or not. 

The part of said act referred to is in these words, to wit : 

" Sec. 2. Said Joint Commission will report their survey, made in ac- 
cordance with the foregoing section of this act, together with all necessary 
notes, maps, and other papers, in order that infixing that part of the boundary 
between the territories of the United States and the State of Texas the 
question may be definitely settled as to the true location of the one-h uiidredth 
degree of longitude west from London, and whether the North Fork of Red 
River or the Prairie Dog Fork of said river is the true Red River desig- 
nated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, made February 
22, 1819; and in locating said line said Commissioners shall he guided by actual 
surveys and measurements, together with such well established marks, natural and 
artificial, as may be found, and such well authenticated maps as may ihroiv light 
upon the subject; and when the main or principal Red River is ascertained as 
agreed upon in said treaty of 1819, and the point is ftdly designated where the 
one-hundredth degree of longitude west from London and twenty-third degree of 



—108— 

longitude west from Washinton crosses said Red River, the same shall be 
plainly marked and defined as a corner in said boundary, and said Commis- 
sioners shall establish such other permanent monuments as may be neces- 
sary to mark their work." 

But inasmuch as the 1st section of said act of the legislature expressly 
provided also that the boundary Ime should be run and marked "«s said line 
was laid dovm in MelisJis map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, 
improved to the first of January, 1818, and designated in the treaty be 
tween the United States and Spain, made February 22, A. D. 1819." 

And the act of Congress also provided that — 

" Whereas, a controversy exists between the United States and Texas as 
to the point where the one-hundredth degree of longitude crosses the Red 
River, as descrihed in the treaty; and 

"Whereas, the point of crossing has never been ascertained and fixed by any 
authority competent to hind the United States and Texas; and ^ 

" Whereas, it is desirable that a settlement of this controversy should be 
had, to the end that the question of boundary, now in dispute because of a 
difference of opinion as to said crossing, may also be settled : Therefore 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States 
be, and he is hereby, authorized to detail one or more officers of the Army, 
who, in conjunction with such person or persons as may be appointed by 
the State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark the point where the one- 
hundredth meridian of longitude crosses Red River, in accordance luith the 
terms of the treaty aforesaid ; " 

We have felt it our duty to present for the consideration of the Joint 
Commission the evidence tending to show: 

That "according to the terms of the treaty''' the line of boundaiy between 
the Arkansas and Red River was to be and is along the 100th meridian as 
that line ivas laid down on Melish's map, and is far to the east of the line 
claimed as the true meridian by the United States, and m fact east of the 
junction of the North and South Forks (so called) of Red River. 

It will be remembered that the Texas Commission expressly reserved the 
right to offer evidence and argument on this proposition at any time during 
the progress of the proceedings of the Commission, in the following words: 

" The issue made, alleging that the one hundredth degree of west longi- 
tude from London crosses the Prairie Dog Town or South Fork of Red 
River west of its junction with the Noi-th Fork of Red River as ascertained 
by observations and surveys made by different parties and under different 
conditions, . . . is denied; because the same . . . contradicts the lo- 
cation of said meridian line by MelisKs map, made part of the treaty, which 
fixes the one hundredth degree of west longitude on said map relative to 
certain well known and permanent natural objects — such as the Great Bend 
of the Arkansas River; the mouth of the ('anadian River where it empties 
into the Ai'kansas; the range of the Wichita Mountains, stretching along 
the course of the Rio Roxo on the east and north side thereof; the bend of 
the Red River to the northward as shown on said map; the watershed and 
great basin toward the source of Red River. These and others then existed 
and now exist, and no doubt influenced and convinced the framers of the 
treaty that the one hundredth degree of west longitude was far to the east- 
ward of the location of said mei'idian now contended for by the United 
States. . . . And upon the said issue presented on the part of the 
United States, the Texas Commission reserve the right at any time during 
the progress of these proceedings to offer evidence and argument in sup- 



' —109— 

port of said meridian being located according to Melish's map made part of the 
treaty." 

Tliis reservation was in accoi'dance with the assumptions, stated as pre- 
liminary propositions by them to the Joint Commission, as follows, to-wit: 

"ASSUMPTIONS. 

"I. It is assumed as a truth conceded by the Joint Commission, that 
the State of Texas, under and by virtue of the several treaties and conces- 
sions between the United States and the Repiablic of Mexico, and the 
United States and the Republic of Texas, is now subrogated to and entitled to 
every right, privilege, and title concerning the boundary in dispute to which 
the Kingdom of Spain was entitled under the treaty of February 22, 1819. 

"II It is assumed that the Joint Commission must ascertain and mark 
the point where the one hundredth meridian of west longitude crosses Red 
River i?i accordance with the terms of the treaty of 1819." 

From the evidence introduced under this reserved proposition and these 
assumptions, we have arrived at the conclusion that the boundary line of 
the lOOth meridian according to the terms of the treaty lies entirely east of 
the forks of Red River, and touches neither the North nor the South Fork 
of the river, and is to be "run and marked " by the natural land marks in- 
dicating its position, which are delineated on Melish's map, and it does not 
require astronomical observations to determine its position on the ground; 
and farther, that it was not contemplated or intended by the makers of the 
treaty that it should be so determined or ascertained. 

In declaring what was agreed upon as the boundary, the makers of the 
treaty, after tracing the lines, verbally concluded by the words " the whole 
being as laid down in Melish's map," adding, however, a single exception 
to this. Every part of the boundary was to be as laid down in that map 
with that single exception. As well one part as another; as well the line 
north from Red River to the Arkansas, it would seem, as those parts wind- 
ing along the rivers which it intersected; as well the points or cornei's 
whei'e it intersected the Great Bend of the Arkansas and a lesser bend of 
Red River as any other points. The single exception to the rule was that 
if the source of the Arkansas River should not be found in latitude 42 de- 
grees north, near which the map laid it down, then the Boundary Commis- 
sioners should ''ascertain the latitude" of the source, etc.; and it is worthy 
particular notice that the treaty did not likewise provide that the 100th 
meridian also should be "ascertained" by the Commissioners, but on the 
contrary provided that they should simply "rtm and mark" the line from 
the mouth of the Sabine to tlie Red River, and from the Red River to the 
Arkansas." The fourth clause of the treaty expressly provided just what 
should be done by the Boundary Commissioners. We submit that the 
terms used, "run and mark," do not include determination of the longitude 
of the line, and that the positive direction for the Commissioners to '' ascer 
tain " the latitude in the one case, and the omission to direct them to " as- 
certain" the 100th meridian in the other, by necessary intendment inter- 
dicted the latter. The line of the 100th meridian was required simply to 
be "run and marked" as it was laid down in Melish's map, not as it might 
be "ascertained" by astronomical observations. Evidently the position of 
this line was to be marked according to the plat of the line — the diagram 
of it incorporated in the treaty — Melish's map; because it was to be "as 
laid down in that map." These are plain and simple words, of no doubtful 
signification. 



—no— 

On that map, which is in evidence, this line is laid down as cutting the 
Arkansas River a little west of the northern extremity of the Great Bend, 
where is now situated the village known by the name of Great Bend, and 
just westward of and above the stream delineated on the map and corres- 
ponding to that now bearing the name of Rattlesnake Creek, very near also 
the notable point where is mai^ked the commencement of the route of the 
survey of Lieut. Pike up the Arkansas to its source, which was made under 
the orders of the United States government as early as 1806. (See Melish's 
Map; Pike's Sources of the Miss., Part III, pp. 107 to 100; and Pike's Diary, 
pp. Ill to 121.) It is also (as laid down) a degree or more eastward from 
the next abrupt bend from the general course of the stream above, which 
corresponds on the ground to that bend situated about 20 miles east of 
Dodge City according to recent maps in evidence It is likewise laid 
down as cutting through the eastern part of a chain of mountains which 
courses along the north and east side of Upper Red River, corresponding (in 
relative positions to the other points already named) to the Witchita 
Mountains and the Gypsum Bluffs noted by Capt. R. B. Marcy. And it 
cuts Red River at a point more than a degree eastward of a great right - 
angular northward bend in the general course of the Rio Roxo of Nachi- 
toches corresponding to the great right-angular bend of that river considered 
in conjunction with the North Fork as a continuous stream, which is deline- 
ated on the recent maps as about 10 miles south of the junction of the North 
Pork and South Fork. These notable natural land marks are all laid down 
on both Melish's map and the recent maps of that region in so neai-ly the 
same relative positions as to identify them beyond question, and at the same 
time to unquestionably fix the position of this boundary line by a close 
approximation and demonstrate that it lies to the east of the junction of 
the North and South Forks of Red River. The relative positions of these 
several objects show that Mr. Bringer, from whose surveys Melish corrected 
the plates of his map from the Mississippi to this 100th meridian, must have 
had a knowledge of the relative sitx;ation of the country in its general to- 
pography closely approximating correctness. (See Melish's Geographical 
Description, Evidence on Part of U. S., pp. 80 and 81.) The Great North- 
ward Bend in the upward course of the Red River of Melish's map, lying a 
little west of south from the Great Bend of the Arkansas (through which 
the boundary line is delineated on that map), is one of the principal features 
of the stream I'emarked by Melish himself.* 

To illustrate what we have now suggested we append a tracing 
from Gillespie's map, put in evidence by the United States, sheet 
No. 2, Western Trritories, by Major G. L. Gillespie, Corps of Engi- 
neers United States Army, bearing date 1876, upon which we have 
drawn that part of Melish's map referred to, enlarged to the scale of 
Gillespie's map. The comparison is made by superposing the great right- 
angular bend of Melish's Rio Roxo of Nachitoches upon the like bend of 
Gillesjjie's main Red River, considered in conjunction with the North Fork 
thereof as a continuous stream, and then projecting the Rio Roxo from 
that point as it is laid down on Melish's map, but on the same scale which is 
used by Gillespie, together with the other streams and the mountains of that 
region as laid down by Melish. The red diagram represents Melish's map 
enlarged, and the blue representing Gillespie's map. We have not at- 
tempted a copy of either map in every particular; but have endeavored to 

* "Wc ha\'e added tins paragraph since the argument was read to the Joint Commission, 
calling tlieir attention to it and submitting the diagram before any reply from the United 
States Commission. 



^111— 

show from Gillespie's map the Arkansas River with its two great bends, 
which we have mentioned; the great sandy desert mentioned by Lieuts. Pike 
and Wilkinson; Rattlesnake Creek, the Salt Fork of the Arkansas, the 
Ne-ne-sah River and several creeks, together with Red River and its branches 
about the region of the junction of the North Fork and Kecheaquehono, and 
the Witchita Mountains, Gypsum Bluffs, and Kechi Hills. From Melish's 
map we have taken most of the streams and mountains delineated upon it 
so as to show its principal outlines. It will be also noticed that between 
the red and blue lines for Red River below the North and South Forks we 
have noted the true course of the river upward from just below the mouth 
of the Big Wichita to the point where Capt. Marcy marked the crossing of 
the 100th meridian. This is ascertained from the observation for latitude 
made by Capt. Marcy at the point where he crossed the river just below 
the mouth of the Big Washita, and from his observation of the latitude of 
his camp on Otter Creek at a point 20 miles north of the place of intersec- 
tion of Red River by the 100th meridian as marked by him. (See Marcy's 
Red River of Louisiana, p. 20.) 

The correspondence in respect to this right-angular bend between it as 
laid down by Melish and the actual stream as it is now well known to be 
on the ground at the point about 10 miles below the junction which we have 
mentioned, is the more striking when we consider that its upward general 
course, there boldly taken, is maintained beyond the junction of the Ke- 
cheaquehono, and for a distance of fifty or sixty miles to the point 
where it cuts through or near the western extremity of the Wichita Moun- 
tains, showing it to be the dominant stream. While, however, this coi'res- 
pondence as to the great right-angular bend is very striking, it is true that 
in minor respects there is not an exact and precise agreement, nor could 
such precise agreement be expected. We do not understand the words 
"the whole being as laid down on Melish's map," to mean that in every 
minor circumstance and particular the boundary shall conform exactly and 
precisely with that map; for in the nature of things that would be impossi- 
ble unless the map were in every respect an exactly correct delineation of 
the country, which is not true of any map. 

This map was understood by the treaty makers, no doubt, to present to 
view with proximate correctness real rivers with real general courses in 
their different parts, with real notable bends or changes of course, with real 
tributaries and their real junctions, as well as with real mountains and 
routes of survey, etc., the localities of which wei'e susceptible of certain 
identification on the ground by reason of their peculiarities and distinctive 
character shown on the map, in respect to which, however, there might be 
some errors of delineation. There is nothing to indicate that the words 
"as laid down in Meliih's map," were intended in other than their ordinary 
signification, which seems to be that as to these prominent outline features 
of that map the boundary line wherein it might otherwise be doubtful 
must conform to the map as nearly as it might be reasonable to expect it to 
do so. That the map in respect to these things should be a guide to ex- 
plain and resolve doubis that might arise as to any part of the boundary. 

At the same time it was perfectly well understood by the intelligence 
which negotiated this treaty that where artificial lines were to be consid- 
ered (which represented longitude or anything else), in case of inaccuracy 
of their delineation they must yield to natural landmarks as being less 
certain than the latter. This was the law in respect to boundaries, founded 
in reason and universally estaolished in the jurisprudence of the world. 

It may be remarked, then, that so far as the boundary pursued the great 



—112— 

rivers mentioned by the ti-eaty and delineated on this map there could be 
no reason for any other guide than the rivers themselves. Natiire had 
made them fixed landmarks, and no mistake could be made about the 
boundary along them, unless a doubt should arise, as in the case before the 
Commission, as to which fork of a river was the true river. 

But in case of uncertainty of this kind something to guide and indicate 
the intention of the treaty makers was evidently necessary, and for that 
purpose a diagram was adopted showing the lines of the boundary with 
respect to its surrounding topography, the great natural features and land 
marks, by reference to which any future doubts of this kind might be re- 
solved. Again, the meridian line of lOU degrees west mentioned in the 
treaty and delineated on the map being an artificial device, and not a natu- 
ral landmark, there might be doubt, and doubtless was doubt, as to where 
it might be fixed if left to artificial or scientific determination. But it was 
not the inter) tio7i of the treaty makers, as we sliall see presently, to leave anything 
uncertai7i that could be made certain by it. 

The 100th meridian had been mapped by Lt. Pike, as will be seen by his 
map, as much as two degrees to the eastward of the point near the Great Bend 
of the Arkansas iviiere he first reached that river in making a survey of that 
region in 1806. * 

According to his map of the Province of Texas (made and improved 
after his passage through Texas, and after extensive intercourse with Mal- 
gares, a Spanish officer who had been sent to survey that region of coun- 
try), there was a fort located high up on the Red River of Nachitoches, 
immediately north of the head of the Trinity River, noted by him as Fort 
Yawayhays, corresponding in relative position to the head of the Clear 
Fork of the Trinity River, to the old Spanish Fort of Pressler's map of 
Texas, in Montague county (see sketch of Pressler's map), which was evi- 
dently the point where Fragoso tarried for six days in making his survey 
in 1788 (see Fragoso's Diary, Ev. of Texas Com., Exhibit A, p. 15), and 
which he called the "Taguayase Villages." 

Now it will be seen from his map aforesaid that Pike had laid down the 
lOOth meridian as intersecting Red River just about one degree west of 
that fort. Its position was no doubt as well known to the parties to the 
treaty as it is to-day. (See Pressler's map, and Maddox's testimony.) 

But with Pike's delineation at command it appeared to the framers of 
the treaty as a fact that it was not a safe guide, for within the previous 
year that country had been carefully surveyed by Mr. Bringer from the 
Mississippi up to the line of the 23d or 100th meridian discovered by him, 
as he supposed, to intersect the Arkansas River two degrees west of where 
Pike had located it (see Melish's Geographical Explanation, put in evidence 
by the U. S.); and Mr. Melish having embodied and published the results 
of Mr. Bringer's survey in his map, it was made known to the framers of 
the treaty that a more reliable survey than Pike's had shifted this meridian 
line from the east side of the Great Bend of the Arkansas, where Pike had 
marked it, to about two degrees westward, so that it now appeared to in- 
tersect that river west of that bend and between it and the notable South 
Bend of the river. Whether this last determination was correct or not 
could not be known. But evidently it was deemed more reliable than that 
of a distinguished and faithful officer of the United States Army, and 
whatever opinion was really entertained of Melish himself by the shrewd 

*This and the three following paragraphs were modified after we had opportunity to ex- 
amine Pike's map, and atteutiou of tlie United Siates Commission was called to the fact 
before their reply. 



—113— 

diplomat DeOnis, he evidently thought highly enough of this survey of Mr. 
Bringer, by which Melish's map had been so recently corrected; for both 
he and Mr. Adams determined to make it the basis and means to fix and 
determine clearly and unmistakably the line they were about to adopt. 

This diagram — the map of Melish corrected by Bringer's recent survey — 
furnished the means of avoiding the uncertainty of a meridian not fixed on 
the ground by any natural landmark, such a meridian (we may be per- 
mitted to remark) as that found and mapped by Lt. Pike in 1806 as inter- 
secting the Arkansas River far to the east of the Great Bend; by Bringer 
in 1817 shifted two degi'ees farther west, cutting the Arkansas just west of 
the Great Bend and Red River about one and a fifth degree east of its 
right angular bend before described and so laid down on Melish's map; by 
Capt. Marcy in 1852 again shifted so as to cut Red River only just a little 
east of that bend; and by still another distinguised and able officer in 1859 
again shifted westward still another degree; thus in the period of fifty- 
three years making three several migrations, and sweeping over a vast 
region of country 200 miles from east to west and 160 from north to south, 
and making a movable meridian if not a "craz;/" one, and this according 
to scientific determinations by three separatelj' acting, educated, and 
skilled topographical engineers of the United States Army, and a private 
citizen who surveyed it for the express purpose of publishing a map — men 
of the highest character and noted for their fidelity and ability. We say 
a simple diagram, the map showing the line of the boundary at certain 
fixed localities, marked by great natural objects, avoided the uncertainty 
thus demonstrated by both previous and subsequent events. Because, in 
the vicinity of the northern extremity of the line as laid down on the dia- 
gram, there was an unmistakable natural landmark, a well defined bend 
of the river there intersected by it, and on either side of it were other great 
natural landmarks hereinbefore referred to. 

These corresponded to the "invariable points, marked by nature, to fix the 
divisional line hetiueen the possessions of the Union and those of the Crown of 
Spain in a manner never to admit of doubt or controversy hereafter," which, 
we shall see, the parties to the treaty deemed " essential " and not to be lost 
sight ofhy them. 

We have a striking illustration of the wisdom of providing this diagram 
of the boundary in the obvious facts already alluded to, especially the fact 
that recent geographers and surveyors have laid down this 100th meridian 
of west longitude in position far to the west of where it is indicated to be in 
the diagram of that line in the treaty — that is far to the west of the Great 
Bend of the Arkansas, through which the line cuts on the map of the treaty, 
and far to the west of the great chain of mountains and hills which this 
diagram places to the west of it and to the west even of the more western 
line which was proposed between the two powers for the boundary and re- 
jected because it was too far west, the line connecting the southern bend of 
the Arkansas, 20 miles east of Fort Dodge, with a bend of Red River as 
proposed by Mr. Adams to Louis de Onis. (Exhibit A, Evidence of Texas 
Commission, p. 8.) 

It is impressively obvious from all those facts why it was deemed impor- 
tant to have some means of making this line definite and fixed, so that the 
evident purpose of the treaty makers to pass eastward from the line pre- 
viously proposed by Mr. Adams might not be defeated, and why the dia- 
gram of Melish's map was adopted. It is to be remarked also that the 
topographical features of the map, its mountains, bends of rivers, junctions 
of rivers and creeks, routes of surveying expeditions, and meridian lines 



—114— 

with their relative positions, were all calculated to secure the certainty 
sought, and were all alike parts of the plat, and were all alike needful to de- 
termine the location of this boundary line in a manner to make it certain, 
and were all alike adopted as a part of the treaty, because these were the 
very parts of the map that pointed out how the line was laid down. 

But if there could be any doubt as to the purpose which led the treaty 
makers to use the words "the whole being as laid down in Melish's map," 
we think it must be removed by considering the steps by which they ar- 
rived at the adoption of those words as part of the treaty. This is not 
done to explain the meaning of those terms, for that would seem to be 
clear, but to show that the parties themselves clearly indicated to each 
other before their final adoption the sense in which they understood and 
used them. 

The parties to the treaty were in controversy over the vast territory 
stretching from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, and from the Missouri 
to the Rio Grande. (See Exhibit A of Ev. on part of Texas, pages 1 
and 2.) They were as wide apart as these limits, but they gradually ap- 
proached each other, Mr. Adams receding from the west and south, and 
Mr. De Onis from the east and north, till they met upon a compromise 
boundary line, the Spanish envoy struggling all the while to retain as 
much territory eastward and northward as possible, while the representa- 
tive of the United States, with a determined arm, was reaching as far to 
the west and south as practicable. (See Diplomatic Correspondence, Ex. 
A, pp. 1 to 10.) 

But throughout the negotiation the parties evinced their purpose to se- 
cure a boundary as far as practicable marked and made certain by fixed 
and stable ^'■natural landmarks," as appears from the following extracts 
from the correspondence between them: 

Statement of Luis de Onis in letter to the Secretary of State, January 
16, 181V: 

"I took the liberty to propose to you . . . that the two powers 
should proceed with good faith to fix limits between them which 
should be mutually convenient, which should not be liable to controversy, or be 
unknown to or violated by the respective subjects of each. ... If 
you sliould propose to me on the part of this government to make the Mis- 
sissippi the frontier, I should see in that proposition a disposition on the 
part of the United States to offer some equivalent, and I would recommend 
it to the consideration of his Majesty as a fixed and stable limit to assure the 
peace and tranquility of the ttoo nations." (Vol. 4, American State Papers on 
Foreign Relations, p. 438.) 

Extract from letter of Don Luis de Onis to John Q. Adams, Secretary of 
State, Washington, Dec. 29, 181 7: 

"I also acquainted you that the King, my master, . . . would 
condescend to cede the two Floridas to this Republic, in consideration of 
an exchange or an equivalent which might be useful or convenient to 
Spain. But as this exchange or equivalent must consist of a territory 
belonging to the United States, and which may offer invariable points, 
marked by nature, to fix the divisional line between the possessions of the 
Union and those of the Crown of Spain in a manner never to admit of 
doubt or controversy hereafter, his Catholic Majesty caused certain propo- 
sals for the said exchange." . . . (Id., 452.) 

Extract from letter of J. Q. Adams to Luis de Onis, Jan. 16, 1818: 

"The President considers it would be an unprofitable waste of 
time to enter again at large upon topics of controversy which were . . . 



—115— 

so thoroughly debated. ... I am instructed by the President to 
propose to you an adjustment of all the differences between the two coun- 
tries by an arrangement on tlie following terms: 

" 1. Spain to cede all her claims to territory eastward of the Mississippi. 

"2. The Colorado* from its mouth to its source, and from thence to the 
northern limits of Louisiaha, to be the western boundary, or to leave that 
boundary unsettled for future arrangement." . . . (Id., 464.) 

Extract from letter of Luis de Onis to J. Q. Adams, Feb. 1, 1819: 

"Considering that the motive for declining to admit my pro- 
posal of extending the boundary line from the Missouri to the Columbia, 
and along that river to the Pacific, appears to be the wish of the President 
to include within the limits of the Union all the branches and rivers empty- 
ing into the said river Columbia, I will adapt my proposals on this point so 
as fully to satisfy the demand of the United States without losing sight of 
the essential object^ namely, thai the boundary line shall, as far as 2^ossible, 
be natural, and clearly defined, and have no room for dispute to the in- 
habitants." 

It appears from these extracts that it was deemed -'the essential object," 
that the boundary line should, "as far as possible, be natural and 
clearly defined," and that the country about it "should offer invariable 
points, marked by nature, to fix the divisional line between the possessions 
of the Union and those of the Crown of Spain in a manner never to admit 
of doubt or controversy hereafter." Accordingly, with this view, Mr. 
De Onis proposed the Mississippi from its source to its mouth, while Mr. 
Adams proposed for a part of the boundary the Red River "to its source, 
touching the chain of the Snow Mountains, or thereabouts, as marked on 
Melish's map." 

Mr. De Onis, rejecting this proposed limit as altogether inadmissible be- 
cause of its proximity to Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, suggested 
instead of it that river for a short distance, and the Arkansas River from 
the 95th meridian west longitude to its source, and the 95th meridian be- 
tween the two rivers, not referring to Melish's map at all; whereupon Mr. 
Adams, yielding eastward some four hundred miles, proposed the Red River 
from near the west line of the State of Louisiana upward to a direct line 
connecting its northernmost point of the bend between the lOlst and 102nd 
meridians of west longitiide with the southernmost point of the bend of the 
Arkansas situated between the same meridians, and the latter river from its 
said bend to its source, etc., the whole to be as laid down on Melish's map. 

Now it will be observed from that map, which is in evidence, that be- 
tween the 101st and 102nd meridian it lays down a very striking bend of 
the Arkansas River, coiTesponding to the first considerable abrupt bend in 
the course of that river above the northern bend, now well known by the 
characteristic appellation of the Great Bend, as delineated on modern maps 
in evidence. The relative position of it to the Great Rend appears to be 
about southwest at a distance of about seventy miles, more or less, as shown 
by Melish's map, recent maps in evidence, and the diary of Lieut. Pike, and 
on recent maps is noted at about 20 miles east of Dodge City. 

The localities of these bends of the Arkansas River had both been 
brought to view by Lt. Pike, of the United States Army, in his survey up 
that river from the point of the lower bend ; and their relative positions to 
each other and to the Pawnee Village and the Great and Little Osage Vil- 
lages were well known to Mr. Adams, as well as to the Spanish Govern- 

* Colorado is tlie Spanish word for Red^ 



—116— 

ment, tlirough either the survey of Lt. Pike or the expedition of Lt. Mal- 
gares of the Spanish Army, contemporaneous with that of Lt. Pike. 

Pike's survey had been made by order of the United States Government 
with special reference to getting information of the topography of that 
region, as appears from the following extracts from his orders and his 
preface to his Sources of the Mississippi (page 18 of Exhibit A, Ev. of 
Tex. Cora., and page 4 of preface of Sources of the Mississippi): 

^'It is an object of 7nuch interest with the executive to ascertain the direction, 
extent and navigation of the Arkansas and Red Rivers; as far, therefore, as 
may be compatible with these instructions and practicable to the means you 
may command, 1 wish you to carry your views to those subjects, and 
should circumstances conspire to favor the enterprise, that you may detach 
a party with a few Osage to descend the Arkansas under the orders of 
Lieutenant Wilkinson or Sergeant Ballinger, properly instructed and 
equipped, to take courses and distances, to remark on the soil, timber, etc., 
and to 7iote the tributary streams. This party will, after reaching our post on 
the Arkansas, descend to Fort Adams and there wait farther orders; and 
you yourself may descend the Red River, accompanied by a party of the 
most respectable Comanches, to the post of Nachitoches, and there receive 
further orders. ......... 

"Yv'ishing you a safe and successful expedition, I am, sir, with much 
esteem and respect, your obedient servant, 

" James Wilkinson. 

" To Lieutenant Z. M. Pike." 

"The great objects in view by this expedition, as I conceived, in addi- 
tion to my instructions, were to attach the Indians to our government and 
to acquire such geographical knowledge of the southwestern boundary of 
Louisiana, then claimed to include that region, as to enable the government 
to enter into a definite arrangement for a line of demarkation between that 
territory and North Mexico." (Pike's Sources Miss., page 4.) 

The expedition of Malgares was made the same year, 1806, and for the 
like purpose of information in reference to the localities of that country, and 
for the additional purpose of intercepting and defeating the expedition of 
Lt. Pike. Thus were the two governments well informed as to these two 
localities and their relative positions to each other and the surrounding 
country. Both of the treaty powers, by their agents, had been on this pre- 
cise ground. (.See Exhibit A, Ev. of Texas Com., pp. 19 to 21, pp 22 and 
23; also, Lt. Wilkinson's report, Ex. A, Ev. Tex. Com., p. 23.) 

Lt. Pike, through three or four several independent sources, received an 
account of the expedition of Malgares from Santa Fe, 233 leagues (about 
VOO miles) down Red River "as far as the Sabine,'''' with a force of several 
hundred men, and thence with the same force through the region of the 
Great Bend of the Arkansas, where he himself found their road and recent 
camps, and ttierefrom estimated their number, and thence to the Pawnee 
and Osage Villages, each account corroborating the others, and he gives a 
memorandum of the orders under which it was undertaken, in whicli he 
says " they descended the Red River 233 leagues, met the grand bends of the 
Tetaus" [Comanches], etc. (Pike's Sources of the Mjss., p. — .) 

On the 28th of February, 1807 he entered m his diary these words: 
"Wo marched late. One of the Frenchmen [of the Spanish force which 
intercepted him] informed me that the expedition which had been at the 
Pawnee had descended the Red River 23;? leagues [about 700 miles], and 
from thence crossed to the Pawnees expressly in search of my party. This 
was afterwards confirmed by the gentleman [Malgares] who commanded 



—117— 

the troops." (Pike's Sources of the Miss., p. 20G.) We may add that it 
also corroborated and corresponded with the information received by him 
from the Pawnee hunter five months before, " that a party of 300 Spaniards 
had lately been as far as the Sabine." (Id p. 140.) 

This officer (Pike) had made observations for latitude and longitude and 
kept the courses and distances of each day's travel, and all of the:r obser- 
vations up to his arrival in the vicinity of the Great Bend of the Arkansas 
River were preserved and transmitted to his government from that point. 
From that bend he continued his survey up that river, while Lt. Wilkinson, 
who accompanied him to that point, descended the river to its mouth, 
noting the junctions of its tributaries and the distinctive features of the 
country. From this survey the map of Melish was constructed, and after- 
wards corrected by Mr. Bringer's more recent and extensive survey as to 
this region. (See Melisii's Map; Pike's Diary, Exhibit A., Ev. of Texas 
Com., pp. 18 to 24. Melish's explanation of his map, Doc. Ev. of U. S. 
Com., V. ; also Pike's map accompanying his I'eport, which has come into 
our hands since the writing of this argument.) 

We invite special attention to the following extracts from Melish's geo- 
graphical description given in evidence by the United States Commission 
(on pages 80 and 81 of our printed pamphlet): 

"In constructing the map, recourse was had to the following materials: 
and as to the delineation of the mountains and style of the 
work, from ArrowsmUh's. Information regarding the Territories was prin- 
cipally procurred from the land ofSce at Washington. The Mississippi 
River and the higher parts of the La Platte, Osage, Arkansas, and Red 
Rivers, with the adjacent countries, are delineated from Pike's travels. It 
is a tribute of respect, justly due to the memory of that enterprising traveler 
and brave officer, to say that the information furnished by him has been of 
great value to this map. and the memorial of his adventures has accordingly 
been perpetuated by the delineation of his route upon its surface, not only 
through Louisiana, but also through the Spanish internal provinces. 

" Before closing this part of the subject, it may be proper to notice sev- 
eral impci'tant alterations and additions that were made upon the map while 
it was in progress, because this will have the double effect of showing the 
great pains that were taken to render the subject complete, and of bringing 
into view the works of several very merritorious laborers in the vineyard 
of geography. After the plan-work was wholly finished, Mr. William 
Darby and Mr. Lewis Bringier arrived in Philadelphia, with MS. maps of 
Louisiana, of great value and importance. Mr. Darby's map embraced the 
whole of the State of Louisiana, principally from actual survey, and more 
acurate materials than had been produced heretofore of the country east of 
it to Pensacola, and the country west nearly to the Rio Bravo del Norte. 
Mr. Bringier s mnji ernhraced the whole of that part of the Missouri territory 
known by the na^ne of Upper Louisiana, from the northern boundary of the State 
of Louisiana to above St. Louis, and from the Mississippi to the -iSd degree of tvest 
longitude. An arrangement xoas immediately formed with these gentlemen by 
luhich the result of their information ivas inco7porated into this map. The old 
luork ivas accordingly erased from the plates and the new substituted at great labour 
and expense.^'' 

This surveying expedition of Pike furnished his government quite a fund 
of accurate data and information about the region of the two great bends of 
the Arkansas, which particularly concerned the two governments in con- 
sidering the proposed line of Mr. Adams as to its intersection with this 
stream, and which, in connection with Bringer's survey, also served to 



;.. —118— 

identify its point of intersection with Red River. He embodied and pub- 
lished this information, together with an account of other expeditions made 
by him, under the title of "Sources of the Mississippi," in the year 1810, at 
Philadelphia, illustrated with maps and charts, as appears upon the' title 
page. (See Pike's Sources of the Mississippi.) 

We have had access to a copy of this work, from which, however, the 
map had been lost. But we have been unable to see copies of his maps 
until since the body of this argument was written. We have had them 
photographed and propose to offer them in evidence. 

A few extracts from " The Sources of The Mississippi " will suffice to 
show the character of the information it gave, and will be found apropos to 
the subject in hand. He wrote as follows: 

"As you approach the Arkansas on this route (the route from the Paw- 
nee village), within 15 or 20 miles, the country appears to be low and 
swampy, or the land is covered with ponds extending out from the river 
some distance. The river where I struck it is nearly 500 yards wide from 
bank to bank. Those banks not more than four feet high, thinly covered 
with Cottonwood. The north side a smampy low prairie, and the south a 
sandy sterile desert. From thence about half way to the mountains the country 
continued the low prairie hills, with scarcely any streams putting into the river; 
and on the bottom many bare spots, on which, when the sun is in meridian, 
is congealed a species of salt sufficiently thick to be accumulated, but it is 
so strongly impregnated with nitric qualities as to render it unfit for use 
until purified. The grass in this district on the river bottoms has a great 
appearance of the grass on our salt marshes. From the first South Fork (see 
chart) the borders of the river have more wood, and the hills are highei', 
until you arrive at its entrance into the mountains." (Pike's Sources of 
the Mississippi, Appendix to Part II, p. 6.) 

The report of Lieut. Wilkinson, found in the same volume, described 
the same sandy desert, and also numerous salines entering the Arkansas 
from the southwest, along his journey on the southwest side as he passed 
downward toward the southeast from the Great Bend. He said: "On the 
1st, 2d, and 3d of November I marched over high and barren hills of sand, 
and at the close of each day passed strongly impregnated salines, and per- 
ceived the shores of the river to be completely frosted with nitre. The 
face of the countr}^, as I descended, looked more desolate than above, the 
eye being scarcely able to discover a tree; and if one was discovered it 
proved to be a solitary cottonwood, stinted in growth by the sterility of the 
soil. . . . On tlie 25th I again attempted the navigation of the river, 
but was unfortunate, as at first. . . . The following day I passed 
the Negracka. at whose moutlj commence the cragg}^ cliff's which line a 
great part of the shores of the Arkansas. . . . The night of Dec. 2d 
was intensely cold, but hunger obliged me to proceed, and we fortunately 
reached the mouth of the Neskalonska River without accident or injury, 
excepting that one of my men got frosted. This day we passed two salines 
which enter on the southivestern side.'" (Pike's Sources of the Mississippi, pp. 
26 to 28.) 

We have given these extracts to call particular attention to how well 
informed both governments were in respect to the particular locality 
through which Mr. Adams proposed his line to connect the South Bend of 
the Arkansas with a Noi'th Bend of Red River, and to the probable reason 
for this particular proposition. 

It is to be remembered that tliis information was procured by the United 
States with special reference to a divisional line of demarkation between 



^119— 

the territories of the two governments. (See Prefjtce, page 4, of Pike's 
Sources of the Miss.) And as it liad been published to the world in the 
year 1810, it is evident Mr. De Onis was familiar with it when, in his letter 
to Mr. Adams, of February 1st, 1819, he said: . . . "it must be in- 
different to them [the United States] to accept the Arkansas instead of Red 
River as the boundary. This opinion is strengthened by the well known 
fact that the intermediate space between those rivers is so much impr(>g- 
nated with nitre as scarcely to be susceptible of improvement." (American 
State Papers on Foreign Relations, vol. 4, page 616.) He was doubtless 
equally well informed about it also through the expedition of Malgares, 
made by order of his own government, ihe developments of which, as we 
have seen, had in like manner become known to Mr. Adams. It was then 
twelve years subsequent to both these expeditions. 

The desolate character given this region by Lts. Pike and Wilkinson 
doubtless suggested it to Mr. Adams as the situs for the boundary line, since 
his government was desirous of making an uninhabited deseit of 30 leagues 
in width along the boundary. This had been proposed in a letter of Mr. 
Ewing, Minister of the United States at Madrid, of August 9th, 1818, to 
Don Jose Pizarro, First Secretary of State of the King of Spain. (See ;? 
American State Papers on Foreign Relations, vol. 4, page 522.) The salines, 
sandy desert, and Great Bends of the Arkansas River and other general 
features noted by the two faithful ofiBcers from whom we have quoted, 
which Mr. Adams found noted on Melish's map, furnished the means (in 
connection with that map, which he made a part of his proposition) of fix- 
ing and identifying the line he proposed beyond the possibility of a doubt. 

It is to be observed that Pike noted in his diary the particular bend of 
the river referred to in the proposition of Mr. Adams. (See entries on 
October 24 of the southwest course of the river above his camp; these 
entries till November 2d, when he reached the point where the river 
" turned to the northwest, hills changing to north side of river.") (Ex. A, 
Ev. Tex. Com., pp. 20 and 21.) 

His report had been published, and both parties to the treaty were pre- 
sumably in possession of it, and well informed of this particular locality. 
Melish had drawn from it, and based his map of the Upper Arkansas upon 
it, and traced the route of this survey from just below this point upon its 
face (see Melish's book, extract Ev. on the part of United States), 
and had attempted to correct Pike's delineation of the 100th meridian, so 
as to make it cut through the sterile desert in the vicinity of the two Great 
Bends.* 

On comparing Melish's map with the natural landmarks on the ground, or 
as delineated on the recent maps in evidence, the remarkable southern bend 
of the Arkansas, referred to in tliis proposition of Mr. Adams and found on 
Melish's map between the lines marked for the 101st and I02d meridians, 
is at once recognized as the same shown on these recent maps as situated 
about 20 miles east of Dodge City and as the first considerable bend of the 
river above what is known as the Great Bend of the Arkansas before men- 
tioned. It will at the same time appear that while Melish's map has the 
meridians on one side of this bend numbered 101 and on the other 102, the 
recent maps have them numbered 99 and 100 respectively. (See our red 
and blue diagram.) But this discrepancy in numbering these meridian lines 
does not prevent the identification; for the great topographical landmarks 
of the adiacent and surrounding regions delineated on Melish's map, which 

* Mr. Monroe, as Secretary of State, on the 19th Jan., 1816, suggested to Do Onis, in 
reference to the two governments, that, " By mutual cessions of territory in quarters most 
convenient to each other, and hy forming an interval hdiueen their possessions to remain va- 
cant, the damjtr of collision might be avoided." (American State Papers on Foreign Relations, 
Vol. 1, page 425.) 

And again Mr. Adams, February 6th, 1819, in his proposition of a line between the two 
bends of the Arkansas and Red Rivers, proposed further that "iVb Spanish settlement shall 
be made on any part of said Bed and Arkansas Rivers, nor on any of the waters flowing into 
the(,ame, nor any east of the chain of Snoio Mountains betiveen latitude 31 degrees and 41 de- 
grees inclusive." (Id., page 617.) 



—120— 

we have already more than once referred to, j^lace the indentification beyond 
question. 

Mr. Adams's proposition to connect this notable bend with another be- 
tween the same meridians on Red River by the shortest line between them, 
which would have crossed the desert region described by Lis. Pike and 
Wilkinson, was, however, rejected by the Spanish envoy, who was very 
averse to a boundary so far west and reaching so near the capital of New 
Mexico. He, however, proposed instead a line more than a degree farther 
east, at the 100th meridian "according to Melish's map," which would cross 
the same desert region. 

"The boundary line between the two countries shall begin on the Gulf of 
Mexico at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea; continuing north along 
the middle of the river to the thirty-second degree of latitude; thence by a 
line due north to the thirty-third degree of latitude where it strikes the 
Rio Roxo of Natchitoches (Red River), following the course of the Rio 
Roxo to the westward to the one hundredth degree of longitude, and thirty- 
three and one-fourth degree of latitude, where it crosses that river; thence 
hy a line due north by the said one hundredth degree of longitude from London 
according to Melish's map, till it enters the river Arkansas; thence along the 
middle of the Arkansas "... 

But did he imagine for one moment, or did Mr. Adams conceive, that 
this line, proposed under these circumstances, might in fact be west of the 
line just rejected? Was it possible for a sane mind to conclude that such a 
thing might be? The map referred to showed it to be eastward of the line 
proposed by Mr. Adams, and that it intersected the Arkansas River in the 
immediate vicinity of the Great Bend, which was both below and eastward, 
of the south bend of Mr. Adams' line. It was of course less advantageous 
to the government of Mr. Adams and more advantageous to his own than 
the one just rejected. None but a line farther east could be so. Mr. De 
Onis was looking for and demanding '^invariable points marked by nature to 
fix the divisional line," and as an "essential object" he required that the 
boundary line " as far as possible be natural and clearly defined.'" The bound- 
ary he proposed was for the most part '' natural;" and was not the balance 
"clearly defined " by declaring it to be a line running due north by the 
lOOth degree of longitude from London according to Melish's map?" He 
proposed the line should be '^ according to Melish's map," which was sub- 
stantially agreed to by Mr. Adams, since it was agreed in the treaty that 
the whole boundary (with the exception before noted) should be as laid 
down in Melish's map. 

Melish's map was thus in effect incorporated with the treaty, and it would 
seem became as much a part of it as any other part for the purpose of showing 
the relative situation of this line upon the face of the country to the natural 
landmarks therein delineated; for the treaty itself declared the boundary 
should be as laid down on that map. Shall it be said that a qualified call 
for an artificial line not then knoivn, not yet certainly known, shall control the call 
for a line intersecting the Great Bend of the Arkansas, and fixed in its relative 
situation to many other well defined natural landmarks by the express de- 
lineation of this map? It seems to us this would contradict reason — would 
be preposterous. What authority can be adduced to support the proposi- 
tion that the natural landnuirks of the diagram or map should yield to an 
artificial line existing then only in imagination, and unmarked on the 
ground? Is not the settled law to the contrary? Those natural landmarks 
were a part of the ti'eaty. Have we not found from the facts and circum- 
stances of the case a necessitiy for just such a limiting and controlling factor 



—121— 

as a diagi'am of natural objects to show just how this Hne was intended to 
be, in order to make that certain which would otherwise have been uncer- 
tain? If not for this purpose, for what purpose was it adopted? It could 
not render the rivers of the boundary more certain, for nature had fixed 
them and made them invariable, and they were well known. But in mak- 
ing his proposition Mr. De Onis could not in the nature of things be certain 
that the absolute lOOth meridian was east of the line through the South 
Bend of the Arkansas which he had just rejected, for it might by more 
accurate observations than those by which Melish had attempted to lay it 
down be determined at a point farther west than the line he had rejected, 
since Bringer and Melish had so recently altered Pike's delineation of it and 
made it appear two degrees farther west than Pike. He did not, therefore, 
call for it without qualification. He wished to avoid ambiguous language. 
There was but one true meridian. Why, then, did he use the qualifying 
words " according to MelinJi^s niapf^ 

Had he intended the real 100th meridian, would he not have proposed 
the 100th meridian simply, without the additional words "according to 
Melish's map? " Why did he add these words? Was it not to confine" the 
line to the Great Bend and make it "clearly defined," which with him was 
an "essential object?" Was it not to avoid tlie very thing now being in- 
sisted on before this Commission, the shifting of this line from where 
Melish laid it down at the Great Bend to a distant locality, abjured by the 
treaty makers as too far west, which would do violence to the intentions of 
both parties. 

Was it not deemed as essential to have this line as clearly defined as any 
other ? And did he, in full view of the natural landmarks then before 
him on the map, which would, if called for, unmistakably define this line, 
carelessly fail to call for them; or did he, on the contrary, by making that 
map his diagram of the line, intend it as a call for the natural objects which 
it showed in contact with the line and in close proximity to it ? This line 
proposed by Mr. De Onis was adopted, the words "according to Melish's 
map" being substituted by the words "as laid down in MeHsh's map," 
applied to the whole boundary. 

Now, is it not incredible that the ministers of these two great nations 
should leave uncertain a line which could so easily be fixed and made cer- 
tain ? Is it not utterly incredible that they intended to leave the line un- 
certain, so that when determined it might, as it is claimed it does, fall far 
to the west of the line which both parties had agreed to reject as too far 
west and more than seventy miles, perhaps, west of the line marked on the 
map as the line agreed upon, or so that it might fall the like or a greater 
distance eastward of the hne agreed upon as laid down on the map, as Lt. 
Pike was known to have laid it down ? (See Pike's map.)* 

We submit it to the candid judgment of the Commission on the part of 
the United States, that no rational mind, after reading the correspondence 
which we have cited, in the light of the facts we have now adduced, can 
doubt that both Mr. Adams and Mr. De Onis understood the line of the 
" 100th degree of longitude according to Melish's map," offered by De Onis, 
and afterwards adopted, was a line situated to the eastward of the line 
through the South Bend of the Arkansas proposed by Mr. Adams and in- 
tersected the Arkansas in the vicinity of the Great Bend. If this be so, it 
follows as an inevitable conclusion that this line as offered and understood 
and afterwards adopted by the treaty makers lies far to the east of where 
the true 100th meridian west longitude is claimed to be by the United 
* This reference to Pike's map we have added since the reading of our argument. 



—122— 

States, since a line drawn south from any point in the vicinity of the Great 
Bend will pass eastward of the junction of the North and South Forks of 
Red River and will touch neither of those streams, and our proposition is 
maintained. We further submit that the conclusion is irresistible that the 
lOOth meridian as laid down on Melish's map is definitely fixed to a certain 
locality, and may be run and marked by the natural landmarks delineated 
on Melish's map (without the aid of astronomical observations) to a close 
approximation of correctness, sufficiently close to enable a boundary com- 
mission to run and mark its position exactly on the ground as these great 
landmarks fix it — sufficiently close to avoid any great violence to the inten- 
tion and expectation of the treaty makers, such as would result if the 
boundary were removed from the neighborhood of its original position, 
cutting the Great Bend of the Arkansas and the eastern extremity of the 
Wichita Mountains, to the position westward of those mountains and near 
120 miles from where it was understood to be by the men who framed the 
treaty — thereby depriving the State of Texas of nearly 14,000 square miles 
of territory which the treaty makers evidently conceded to the Spanish 
Government as a part of Texas. 

G. R. Freeman, 
J. T. Brackenridge. 
I concur in the foregoing to this extent: I believe that the treaty meant 
the meridian as laid down on the map of Melish, whether the true lOOtli 
meridian or not. 

W. H. Burgess. 



—123— 
SPECIFIC REVIEW 

OF THE 

AHGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS 

AND 

CITATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES. 

BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION. 



Office of the Joint Boundary Commission, ) 
Austin, Texas, July 7, ]886. f 
Ool. S. M. Mansfield, President of the United States Boundary Commission : 

Sir — Although the ;irgument presented by the Commissioners of tlie 
United States, dated the 2 1st of June, 1861, was not in each of its different 
parts specifically referred to in the argument by the Texas Commission, 
dated the '23rd of June, yet the latter was deemed and intended as a full 
answer to the former. 

It has, however, occurred to the Texas Commissioners that a more specific 
review of the argument presented by the Commission on the part of the 
United States might conduce to bring the two sides of the Commission 
closer together. 

We beg, therefore, to submit tlie following review for the consideration 
of the Commission on the part of the United States. 

Their argument assumes that because of the alleged ''fact that the 
branches of Red River were wholly unknown to the parties who agreed 
upon and to the author of the treaty map, as stated by Governor Ireland in 
his letter to the Secretary of War," therefore, "there being no reason, as 
far as the treaty map is concerned, for taking one fork more than the other 
as a boundary, the question is resolved simply into this: which branch 
should properly be considered as the prolongation of the lower river; or, in 
other words, which branch is Red River." 

A Chief Issue Ignored. 

This assumption wholly ignores and refuses to consider the subject matter 
of Governor Ireland's forcible and clear statement of a real and most im- 
portant issue before the Commission, and parades an incidental admission 
made simply for argument and for illustration, as the principal matter of his 
letter. 

He said: "If the two parties had intended tliat the boundary should be 
at the point where the true 100th meridian crossed the river, it would have 
been surplusage and quite unnecessary to add, after discussing the bound- 
ary, the words 'all according to Melish's map as improved up to 1818.' 
According to all well known rules of construction, this last clause was in- 
tended to govern and control what preceded. , . . The concluding 



—124— 

language of the treaty as shown above, it seems to me, carries the conclu- 
sion beyond doubt that they intended the boundary to be where Melish 
placed the 100th meridian. Any other construction would convict the 
government and their envoys of using language contrary to well known 
rules of construction and of adding a meaningless clause to the treaty. 
What possible use could the clause be unless intended to govern. It may 
be, therefore, that Melish's map may show that the 100th meridian crosses 
Red River east of Greer county. 1 only insist that the language of the 
treaty be followed in laying down rules and giving instructions to the Com- 
missioners." This letter of Governor Ireland was subndtted by the Secre- 
tary of War to the consideration of the Acting Chief of Engineers John G. 
Parke, and his opinion, attached to the copy of the letter produced before 
the Commission, states substantially that he conceived these views of Gov- 
ernor Ireland were all included in the " scope of the executive orders " to the 
Commissioners on the part of the United States. He uses this language: 
"It is thus obvious that the scope of the executive orders above referred to 
includes all that the Governor of Texas suggests." . . . Yet it would 
seem that the Commission on the part of the United States do not deem 
that any part of the principal suggestions of Governor Ireland is included 
within "the scope of the executive orders " given for their instruction. 

They have assumed that because, as they allege, the framers of the treaty 
and the maker of the map did not know the branches of Red River, the 
boundary line in question is not to be as laid down on that map, when the 
treaty directs in express words that it shall be as so laid down. They en- 
tirely disregard, as it seems to us, the intimation to them in the concluding 
clause of the letter of Chief Engineer Parke, which we have quoted. We 
might reasonably ask, why were they furnished with a copy of Melish's map 
if the only question for this Commission is to find the true 100th meridian 
and a branch of Red River, which the map can not assist us in finding ? 
Chief Engineer Parke says, in his letter of December '21st, 1885, a copy of 
which was furnished them with their orders, " that they have been furnished 
with a copy of the tracing" [a tracing from Melish's map, showing the 
lOOth meridian and the Red River.] Has it not occurred to the Commis- 
sioners on the part of the United States to inquire for what purpose this 
tracing was furnished them if not to ascertain from it how the lOOth merid- 
ian is laid down on it, and to instruct them where they are to look for it ? 
We respectfully =uggest to them that this must have been the purpose, be- 
cause Governor Ireland had suggested that this was the duty of the Com- 
mission, and Chief Engineer Parke replied that "the scope of the exe- 
cutive orders [to them] includes all that the Governor of Texas suggests." 

" Which /branch .should Properly be Considered the Prolomjation of the Lower 
Red River,^'' not the Issue Before the Commission, as Assumed by the United 
States Commission. 

Admitting, only for the sake of argument, that it is the true one 
hundredth mei-idian which is to be found, and not the meridian as 
laid down in Melish's map, we do not see how it follows from the premises 
— from the alleged ignorance of Melish and the treaty makers concerning 
the branches of the Red River — that the question for the Commission is, 
" which branch of Red River .should properly be considered the prolongation 
of the lower Red River." For it does not appear from the terms of the 
treaty that tlie parties were concerned about any such question as a branch 
of Red River that ought /n-o^cr^y to be considered Red River; but it appears 



—125— 

tliey were contemplating a boundary extending np the stream named or 
called Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or Red River, to the lOOth meridian as 
both stream and meridian were laid down in JMelish's map. Red River had 
many large branches, among them notably the False Washita of the Indian 
Territory, which was known, and the Big Wichita of Texas, then perhaps 
unknown, both of which are said to be more navigable than Red River 
itself, and either of which it might perhaps be thought should properly be 
considered Red River. But it is a matter well known in the history of the 
country that the South Fork of Red River is not navigable at all for steam- 
boats, and the evidence taken shows that much of the time it is a bare sand 
bed, totally destitute of water. Capt. Marcy, however, in his report in 1852, 
said of the Big Wichita, "It is my impression that the Big Wichita is of 
sufficient magnitude to be navigable with small steamers of light draught 
at almost any stage of water" [see page 6, Marcy's Red River of Louisiana]; 
and though a few days after he found 6 to 8 feet of water in the North Fork 
[see his report, page 1.5] we do not now propose a comparison with it. He 
selected the site of Fort Washita on the False Washita for its advantages 
of navigation. (See his report.) Would it not, then, be more "■proper"' for 
the Commission to consider one or the other of these streams Red River 
than for them to consider the South Fork as Red River? They both 
reach the true 100th meridian, and would seem more entitled to the 
dignity of being called Red River, because they are properly termed 
navigable streams for the greater portion of the year. The only diffi- 
culty in the way seems to be, that, at the date of the treaty, neither 
was ever named or called Red River nor laid down on Melish's map 
as Red River; and in fact each had its own distinctive name. Can it 
be said that the Kecheaquehono is free from this difficulty? Was it 
ever called Red River before the date of the treaty, or even for thirty years 
afterwards? If so we have not been able to find any proof of the fact. 
But what are the facts in proof about the Nortli Fork on this point? We 
have, in our first argument, shown by overwhelming evidence that as far 
back as the boyhood of men, [ndians and white men, who were well ad- 
vanced in years and experienced as hunters and trappers in 1841 and 1842, 
it had always been known to them by the name of Red River and no other 
name. (See depositions of Ford, Bee, Ross, Young, Erath, Pitts, and 
Marcy, Ev. of Texas Cora., pp. 29 to 58, and Exhibit "A," 24 to 28.) Capt. 
Marcy found six and even eight feet of water in it as he went up it (see his 
rept., p. 15), and on his return in the middle of July it was still a bold 
stream two feet deep (Id., p. 65), while the Kecheaquehono had but little 
water in it. He said ot it: "There is but little water either in the river or 
in the creeks, and in a dry season I doubt if there would be any found here." 
(Id., p. 49.) According to the testimony cited by us in our first argument, 
much of the time, it is entirely dry and looks like a vast sand bed; and yet 
this is the phenomenal thing which we are told ought '■'■properly to be con- 
sidered Red River,'' (though it was never known to have borne the name till 
long after the treaty), in preference to that which is "■ always running,'' &s 
shown by the evidence, and was always, so far as known, called Red River, 
and never known till since 1852 by any other name. 

Was the Region about the Forks of Red River unknoion to the Treaty Makers 
and Melish, as alleged by the United States Commission.? 

It seems the map of Melish is discarded as a factor in ascertaining which, 
the North or South Fork, is Red River, simply because (as is alleged) Me- 



—126— 

lish and the treaty makers did not know anytlung of the region where the 
river forked, and consequently did not contemplate there being more than 
one stream. Yet it would seem if nevertheless one of the forks was at that 
time bearing the name of the Red River of Nachitoches, and only one, 
their ignorance of the fact of two streams should not prevent the applica- 
tion of the treaty to what was really then named the Red River of Nachi- 
toches, which was the river to be followed up, by the terms of the treaty. 

The fact is alleged, however, that the ignorance of this region of country 
on the part of the treaty makers and Melish existed, and that it is a suffi- 
cient reason for discarding Melish's map in the effort to ascertain which 
stream ought to be deemed the Red River above the junction of its forks. 
Let us see, then, if such was the fact — if in fact Melish and the treaty 
makers were uninformed about that region. 

We think the evidence is strong and conclusive to the contrary. 

The accuracy of Melish's delineation of its relative position to the Bends of the 
Arkansas and the Wichita Mountains sh.otvs accurate Knowledge of it. 

We have abundantly shown in our second argument, dated June 26th 
(pp. 115 to 119 of printed book), that both parties were remarkably well 
informed about the region of the Arkansas River traversed by the line of 
the 100th meridian of Melish's map, and also the region on the same river 
of the line previously proposed by Mr. Adams, to connect the bends of the 
two rivers. 

Let us now go back to the latter line and trace it south between the 101st 
and 102nd meridians of Melish, to its intersection with Red River. The 
proposition called for the northernmost point of the bend of Red River, 
between the 101st and 102d degrees of longitude, as laid down on Melish's 
map. We do not find between those meridians any strongly marked 
bend in the general course of the stream as it is laid down on that 
map, except the great right-angular turn eastward, in its downward 
course, which mig-lit or might not have on the ground such a small 
irregularity as the little point northward shown at this Great Bend. 
The words "northernmost point of" in Mr. Adams' proposition would 
apply to such an irregularity if it should be found to exist on the 
ground. Otherwise it must (it would seem) be deemed si;rplusage, like 
the words " northernmost part of " in the expression " the northernmost 
part of the thirty-third degree of north latitude '' used by Mr. Adams 
in his proposition of .3 1st October. (See Exhibit A, page 5.) But when 
we go on the groiind, or compare recent maps, we do find the bend evi- 
ently intended and alluded to, a great right-angular bend eastward in the 
general course downward of the stream, if we consider the North Fork the 
Red River, and that very nearly in the exact relative position to the Ar- 
kansas Bend in which Melish's map shows it to be; and while this corre- 
spondence identifies the North Fork with the upper river of Melish, it also 
discloses the fact of remarkably accurate information of this particular 
locality by the person who made the map; and though Kennedy, Kendall, 
Pike, Darby, and Melish himself, might all join in saying that the sources 
of Red River were unknown, and that little was known of this particular 
region; yet here is the fact evident on the face of Melish's map and in his 
explanation accompanying it, taken with the recent maps in evidence, that 
the information about this bend of the river and its relative position to that 
of the Arkansas was remarkably accurate. 

If the Kecheaquehono be considered the prolongation of the Red River, 



—197— 

however, then the river, according to I'ecent maps, would have no such 
right-angular turn northward from its general course below, as is shown by 
Melish's Red River between these two meridians, and it might be argued 
therefrom that Melish had no correct information of the river in the region 
of that great i-ight-cmgular hend northward. But consider the other stream, 
the North Fork as the true Red River, and the correctness of his informa- 
tion, as we have seen, is at once obvious. 

Mr. iVIelish, only about three years before his map was, in effect, made a 
part of the treaty, had published to the world the results of Mr. Bringer's 
surveys from the Mississippi out to the 100th meridian as marked on his 
map, and had corrected Pike's erroneous delineation of longitude by Brin- 
ger's surveys (pp. 80 and 81 of printed book), and had made this remarkably 
close approximation to the true relative position of the bends of the Arkan- 
sas and Red Rivers, which were near two hundred and fifty miles apart; and 
yet, because flippant writers of so called histor}^ have shown their own ig- 
norance of this particular region, on their authority, it is assumed by the 
Commissioners on the part of the United States as a fact, that this particu- 
lar part of Red River — that about this (Ireat Bend, above and below — was 
wholly unknown. Melish's map is a standing proof of the contrary. The 
fact that he did not know its exact source was no evidence that his informa- 
tion as to this part was not correct, for Rringer had surveyed the country 
to that vicinity, and the developments of to-day which we have just shown 
prove the correctness of the information he gave. He was a man of suffi- 
cient character to cause Melish to erase the engravings from his plates and 
to delineate his map upon them instead. And the information conveyed is 
found now 68 years later to be almost as accurate as to the relative situa- 
tion of the two Great Bends of the Arkansas to this Great Bend of Red 
River as the information furnished by the latest maps to be found. 

Red and Bine Diuyram. 

Let the comparison be made as upon our Red and Blue Diagram, pre- 
sented in our previous argument, and the correspondence between Melish's 
map and recent maps as to this region of country will be found to extend 
not alone to the Great Bends of the Arkansas and the Right Angular Bend of 
Red River, but in reference to the hills and mountains there will be found 
a like correspondence — Gillispie's Kechi Hills, Wichita Mountains, Ante- 
lope Hills, unnamed hills to the noi'thward and the sand hills along the 
upper Arkansas corresponding to Melish's mountains and hills north of the 
Right Angular Bend of the Red River and upward along the course of the 
the river, and northward to the Arkansas and up that stream. But we 
look in vain for any such correspondence, if we consider the Kecheaque- 
hono of recent maps the river. There is then no right angular bend to be 
found south of the Wichita Mountains, and no range of hills or mountains 
coursing up its north side, corresponding to the range along the north side 
of Melish's Upper Red River. This correspondence in the former case is 
striking, and is a clear demonstration of accurate information in Bringer, 
by whose survey Melish cori'ected his plates. 

And we may imagine, could Bringer be brought upon the stage of action 
again, he would be astonished at the amount of effort which has been put 
forth tu prove, by the ignorance of other people, tliat he knew nothing of 
this region, which he had carefully surveyed and mapped so as to demon- 
.strate beyond question the accuracy of his observations. What boots it, 
therefore, if Melish and others did afterwards declare that the sources of 



—128— 

Red River were still unexplored, since that did not signify that the infor- 
mation derived from Bringor about this particular locality was not correct. 
The sources of Red River were near two hundred miles farther west than this. 

Other Facts Shovu'ng Knotoledge of this Region. 

Whether Melish had other information than from Binger to enable him 
to fix the relative position of this Great Bend of Red River to that of the 
better known regions 250 miles north of it on the Arkansas (about which 
we have in our previous argument shown the accurate and extensive infor- 
mation which was in possession of the parties to the treaty), we do not pre- 
tend to know. Certain it is we have shown his information was of a re- 
markably accurate character for that day and time as to this vicinity. 

But there are other facts in evidence which show a strong probability 
that Melisli had access to other sources of information, and that both parties 
to the treaty, by their direct efforts for 12 years to get information of that 
region, had measurably succeeded. 

This region, as will be seen by reference to Pike's map of the Internal 
Provinces of Mexico, lay in the immediate vicinity — nay, immediately at 
the '"astern boundary of the Province of New Mexico. 

Pike placed the eastern boundary of that Province, it will be seen, im- 
mediately at the Great Bend of Red River. In referring to his map, it 
must be remembered that he placed the 100th meridian two degrees east of 
the line marked for that meridian l)y Melish, which fact appears from his 
(Pike's) map of the Arkansas River, and that Melish placed it about one and 
a fifth degrees east of the right angular bend of Red River. This would make 
that bend of Red River over three degrees, according to Pike's reckoning, 
west of the 100th meridian, and so we find he has delineated it between the 
103d and 104th meridians; and just at this bend he has also delineated the 
boundary of New Mexico. 

He had had good opportunity of information as to that boundary in his 
recent intercourse with Malgares and other Spanish officers, and in his free 
and unreserved interview with Father Rubi of New Mexico, to whom he 
refers in these words: 

"Father Rubi displayed a liberality of opinion and a fund of knowledge 
which astonished me. He shewed me a statistical table on which he had in reg- 
ular manner taken the whole province of New Mexico, hy villages, heginning at 
Taos on the northwest and ending with Valencia on the south, and giving their 
latitude, longitude, and population, whether natives or Spaniards, civilized or bar- 
barous. Christian or pagan, nurnhers, name of the nation, vhen converted, how gov- 
erned, military force, clergy, salary, etc., etc.; in short, a complete geographical, 
statistical and historical sketch of the province.'' (Sources of the Mississippi, 
Pike's Expedition, pages 111 to 221.) 

This had been published to the world for eight years before Melish's map, 
and was a pointer for that gentleman and Binger to a source of certain in- 
formation. 

It was from some such source, doubtless, that Humboldt obtained infor- 
mation of the settlements on [Tpper Red River, noted on his map as " Ran- 
cho Stations de Muletiers," and nan)ed San Calixto, Canoatinos. Canisis and 
Quichicans. With such a hint from Pike, the enterprise of a Bringer 
might easily command the daring of the traders and hunters of Santa Fe 
and St. Louis, who (Pike informs us) were ranging that country, and some 
of whom were arrested by Malgares and sent back to the United States. 
There was this m(!ans of information on the north and west of that region. 



—129— 

But there was another source in much closer proximity to the bend of Red 
River, of which Bringer and Melish were both informed by Pike's map of 
the internal provinces of Mexico, then eight years before the public. We 
may see noted on the Red River of Nachitoches of that map, about the 
99th meridian west, the position of a Spanish Fort, almost immediately 
north of the source of tiie Trinity River, Fort Yawayhays, corresponding 
in position to the locality where Fragosa halted six days in his journey in 
1788, calling it the Tawayeese Villages (see Exhibit A, of Evidence of 
Texas, page 15), and also corresponding to the old Spanish Fort of Pressler's 
map, in evidence, on the northern border of Montague county, Texas, 
and to that referred to in the deposition of Maddox (Evidence of Texas, 
page 55), and which has given name to a United States postoffice of that 
locality. The Big Bend of Red River lay directly between that fort and 
Santa Fe and the Rancho Stations do Muletiers, on the river above, laid 
down by Humboldt. 

Bringer, who made his surveys at least a degree beyond that fort, had 
thus a source of information and assistance, through the Spaniards there to 
be met with, who must have been familiar with their stations on the river 
above and in the intermediate country. 

Spanish Names Existwgin that Rpgiov in \ 788 Indicate Knowledge of the Region. 

There were evidences, furnished by Fragosa, tliat the immediate neigh- 
borhood of this Great Bend of Red River and of the junctions of the 
several rivers thereabouts was well known to the Spaniards. His journal 
will be found in Exhibit A, Evidence of Texas, pages 13 to 17. The 
United States Commissioners, referring to that journal, say that "he struck 
the sources of the Main Fork and followed down Red River for one hun- 
dred and five leagues, which brought him to the neighborhood of the Cross 
Timbers and the Trinity River." But Fragosa did not anywhere call the 
stream Red River." We regret that the suggestive fact that he found it 
already named White River {Rio Blanco) made no impression on the United 
States Commissioners. 

Nor does the further fact that (in the region immediately above and below 
the forks of the river and this r)ig Bend) Ik? also found a number of other 
streams and places then bearing Spanish names, seem to have made any im 
pression. We most respectfully call their serious attention to the fact. How 
does it occur to them that Buck or Clear Creek, ten leagues above the forks, 
got the Spanish name of Rio de la Plumas which it bore when Fragosa found 
it? or that the place at which he camped, about twelve leagues northeast of 
the forks, got the Spanish name of San Antonio, which he found it bearing? 
or how Cache Creek came to bear the Spanish name of San Marcos? or the 
Big Wichita to have the name Rio del Almagra (Ochre River)? or another 
stream, a little lower down, to be called San Juan? or the oak grove noted 
on Marcy's map as on the east side of Beaver Creek, near it mouth, to be 
called San Jose? 

All these were Spanish names which Fragosa found these rivers and 
places already bearing. (See Exhibit A, pages 14 and 15.) How did the 
Kecheaquehono get the name of Rio Blatico (White River)? We perhaps 
have said, inadvertently, in our first argument that Fragosa named it so. 
But it was an inadvertence. His narrative shows clearly that this name, 
and the othei-s above mentioned, existed there when he reached tlie country. 
When he himself gave a name he was careful to note the fact that he did so. 

How, then, did all these Spanish names in that immediate neighborhood 



—130— 

get their origin, if there were no white people — no Spaniards thereabouts to 
call them by these Spanish names, and give information of the geography 
of the country to such men as Humboldt, Melish and Bringer? Has it not 
been noticed that the Rio Blanco of Fragosa still preserves a part of its 
original name in the name Tierra Blanco (White Earth) on all the recent 
maps, applied to its head branch? 

Pike's Narrative, and the Malgares Expedition dovjn Red River added to the knowl- 

ed(je of it. 

Moreover, that this region of the Great Bend and forks of Red River was 
well known to the Spaniards is very evident from the narrative of Lieuten- 
ant Pike. He expressly says that the Spanish officer who intercepted his 
expedition on the head of the Rio Grande said to him: "Sir, the Governor 
of New Mexico, being informed you had missed your roi;te, ordered me to 
offer you, in his name, mules, horses, money, or whatever you may stand in 
need of, to conduct you to the head of Red River; as from Santa Fe to 
where it is sometimes navigable is eight days journey, and we have guides 

AND ROUTES OF THE TRADERS TO CONDUCT US." 

It does not appear that this was spoken of the Canadian River, as the 
United States Commission seem to suppose; for that river, as shown by re- 
cent maps, was within close proximity to Santa Fe, and not over two or 
three days journey therefrom. 

We may be allowed to enquire why the Commission on the part of the 
United States say of Malgares, whose expedition was sent down Red River 
in 1806, from Santa Fe: "He descended the Canadian, which he mistook 
for the Red River, and then crossed over to the Arkansas." We are com- 
pelled to think the mistake is with the Commissioners of the United States. 
For Pike, from whom we derive all the knowledge on the subject, gave a 
very different account:* 

Now, it seems this officer, Malgares — who had been ordered "to descend 

*We will quote him : " I will here attempt to give some memoranda of this expedi- 
tion. . . . T was fitting out for mj^ expedition from St. Louis, when some of the 
Spanish emissaries in that country transmitted the information to Major Merior and the 
Spanish Council at that place, who immediately forwarded on the information to the then 
Commandant at Nacogdoches (Captain Sebastian Rodreriques), who forwarded it to Colonel 
Cordeso, by whom it was transmitted to the seat of govei'ument. This information was 
personally communicated to me, as an instance of the rapid means they possessed of trans- 
mitting the information relative to the occurrences transacting on our frouiiers. The expedi- 
tion was then determined on, and liad three ojects in view, viz: 

" 1. To descend the Red River, in order if he met our expedition to intercept and turn us 
back; or should Major Sparks and Mr. Freeman have missed the party from Nacogdoches, 
under the command of Captain Viana, to oblige them to return and not penetrate farther 
into the country, or make them prisoners of war. 

" 2. To explore and examine all the internal parts of the country from the frontiers of the 
province of New Mexico to the Missouri. 

"3. To visit the Tetaus, Pawnees republic, Grand Pawnees, Pawnee Mahaws, and 
Kans. . . . Lieut. Don Facundo Malgares, the officer selected ... to com- 
mand this expedition. . . . This officer marched from the province of Biscay with 
100 dragoons of the regular service, and at Santa Fe (the place where the expedition was 
fitted out from) he was Joined by 500 of the mounted militia, of that province. 
The whole nnniber of their beasts were two thausand and seventy-five They descended the 
Red River 23.'i learjues, met the grand bands of the Tetaus; held councils with them, then 
struck off northeast and crossed the country to the Arkansas, where Lieut. Malgares loft 
240 of his men with tlie lame and tired horses, whilst he proceeded on with the n^st to 

the Pawnee republic. . . . Lieut. Malgares returned to Santa Fe tlie of 

October." (Pike's Sources of the Miss., page 143.) 

"February 28. — . . . One of the Frenchmen informed me that the expedition 
vjJiich had been at the Pawnees had descended, the Red River 232 leagues, and from thence 



—131— 

Red River,'" to intercept and turn back either Pikers expedition or that of 
Major Sparks and Mr. Freeman, which, vxis ascending Red River from Louisiana, 
and also to visit the Comanches,* whose home was on that river, where Fra- 
gosa before and General Marcy years later foi;nd it to be (See Marcy's Red 
River of Louisiana, pages 86 and 94; Exhibit A, Evidence of Texas Com- 
mission, page 14)f — we say, this officer himself informed Lieutenant Pike 
that he descended Red River 233 leagues (about 700 miles), confirming 
what the Frenchman had told him before, and what the Pawnee hunter had 
said to him six months previous. J 

It will be noticed from Fragosa's estimate that it was 201 leagues to the 
Sabine from the head of the Blanco. But he traveled by a direct course, 
leaving Red River at the Tahuayase Villages (Fort Yawayhays of Pike's 
map.) Estimating, therefore, 32 leagues for the sinuosities of the river, the 
distance named, 233 leagues, would about reach the Sabine. 

It would not seem at all reasonable to suppose that Malgares neglected 
the important object of intercepting the expedition of Sparks and Freeman, || 
which was coming up Lower Red River, and it is reasonable to suppose, ac- 
cording to the Pawnee hunter's story, that a detachment of 300 men was 
sent down the river from the Comanche country for that purpose, 
while Malgares (perhaps on the same "very extensive plains" south of the 
Wichita Mountains, over which Fragosa's Comanche guide had led him), 
(see Exhibit A, page 14), was entertaining the Comanches by the imposing 
pageant which he described to Lieutenant Pike, in the following words; 

" Having been personally apprised of each others approximation, and ap- 
pointed a time for the Indians to receive him on an extensive prairie, he 
sallied forth from his camp with 500 men, all on white horses, excepting 
himself and his two principal officers, who rode jet black ones, and was re- 
ceived on the plain by 1500 of those savages, dressed in their gay robes and 
displaying their various feats of chivalry." (Appendix to Part II of Pike's 
Sources of the Mississippi, page 18.) 

crossed to the Pawnees expressly in search of my party. This was afterwards confirmed by 
tlie gentleman who commanded the troops." 

" March 2, Monday. — . . . Governor — Yon will dine with me to-day, and march 
afterwards to a village aljont six miles distant, escorted by Capt. Anthony D'Almosa, with a 
detachment of dragoons, who will accompanj^ yon to whore the remainder of your escort is 
now awaiting you, under the command of the officer who commanded the expedition to the 
Pawnees." (Id., page 216.) 

^' March 8th, Sunday. — . . . When we approached the village of San Fernandes, 
ive loere met by Lieut. Malgares. . . . He received me with the most manly frank- 
ness and the politeness of a man of the world. Yet my feelings were such as almost 
overpowered me, and ol)liged me to ride by myself for a short period to recover myself; 
those sensations arose from my knowledge that he had now been absent from Chih\iahua ten 
nioutlis, and it had cost the King of Si)ain more than ten thousand dollars to elfcct that 
which a mere accident and the deception of the governor had effected." (Id., page 228.) 

*The words Comanche and Tetau were synonomous. See Pike's Chart, Sources of the 
Mississippi. 

f "The Comanches and Kioways resort in great numbers to the waters of the North Fork 
of Red River. . . . Vestiges of their camps were everywhere observed along the 
whole course of the valley from the Wichita Mountains to the sources " . . . (Marcy's 
Red River, page 80.) 

■' The two most ninuerous and powerful tribes of Indians frequenting the country upon 
Upper Red River are the Comanches and Kiowaj-s; the former range from the Wichita 
Mountains to the sources of the river." . . . (Marcy's Red River, page 94-.) 

X^' September 22. . . . Met a Pawnee h\mter, who informed us that a party of 300 
Spaniards had latelv been as far as the Sabine; but for what purpose unknown." (Pike's 
Diary.) 

II Malgares. descending from the head of the river, would only learn of the capture of this 
expedition by the Spanish troops from Nacogdoches by passing far down the river. 



—132— 

Notwithstanding these circumstances attending the expedition of Mal- 
gares down Red River to the Comanche (or Tetau) country, and, necessa- 
rily, through the neighborhood of the Great Bend, and the information 
from Malgares himself that he descended that stream 233 leagues and 
visited the Tetaus (Coraanches), the United States Commissioners suggest 
that Malgares made a mistake and descended the Canadian. It w^as merely 
a mistake of their own, however. It could not have been merely to give 
coloring to their other assumption that the region of the Great Bend and 
forks of Red River was unknown. ^ 

If, however, it was a deliberate assertion, it seems to have no other foun- 
dation than the fact that Pike supposed, as, perhaps, Humboldt did, that a 
tributary of the Canadian ran into Red River, and so mapped it. 

The logic would seem to be that Malgares made a mistake about descend- 
ing Red River, because Pike did not know its source! But from his own 
account the fact seems certainly to be that Malgares descended Red River 
and went into the ranging ground of the Comanches. (Fragosa had found 
those Indians, in 1*788, immediaidy south of the Wichita Mountains, and 
camped there with them, and Marcy found their old camps on the North 
Fork of Red River at a later day, all the way from those mountains to the 
head of that river.) 

Tlie result of this expedition must have been accurate information to the 
Spanish government about this region and the bends of the Arkansas — for 
that was its prime object. But there was hardly need of our elaborate 
exhibit of facts bearing on this point; for the Commissioners on the part of 
the United States have clearly shown by Melish's geographical description 
that he was accurately informed about that very region by Bringer and 
Pike, the former correcting the errors of the latter. Mr. Adams and De 
Onis were, of course, by Melish's publication, equally informed. The basis 
of their singular conclusion is, therefore, destroyed by a single paragraph 
adduced in evidence by the United States Commissioners themselves. 

Ljnorance of the ^Streams South of the North Fork no Evidence thai the North 

Fork was not Known. 

It is not to be argued that because these geographers did not lay down 
also the several southern branches of the river, the Big Wichita, Pease 
River, Kecheaquehono, and Salt Fork, therefore they knew nothing of the 
region of the North Fork, or of what they laid down as the Upper Red 
River. For that sort of logic would prove that General Marcy (the faithful, 
painstaking explorer, under orders from his government to explore Red 
River from the mouth of Cache Creek to its sources) knew nothing of the 
several head streams which he actually explored in 1852. And why do we 
make bold to venture this proposition? 

Simply because it is well known and admitted that Marcy did ex- 
plore the North Fork, the Salt Fork, and the Kecheaquehono, and yet 
returned j^rofoundly ignorant of tlie existence of Pease River, ivliich forms its 
junction with Red River in the immediate vicinity of the point tohcre he marked 
the crossing of the lOOth m,eridian and noted the function of the Kecheaquehono 
and tlie North Fork. 

Though made familiar with the North Fork from the Great Bend to its 
source, he remained ignorant of the existence of this lai'ge stream, now 
known as Pease River, though it was his express duty to find it and explore 
it, and though the next officer under his command, General McClellan, in 
fact, marked the crossing of the 100th meridian within a mile or two of its 



* Another fact noted by Pike shows that Malgares made no mistake, but in fact descended 
Rod River, as Pike said lie did. He sent some of his prisoners, who were traders from the 
United States, and whom he found and captured in the country, to Nachitoches, on Red 
River. In a note (page 145, Sources of the Mississippi) he says: " Malgares took with him 
all the traders he found there from our country, some of vjhom having been sent to Naddtoches 
toere in abject poverty at that place on my arrival." 



—133— 

moutli. It is within the knowledge of the writer of this argument that 
when a member of this Commission called General Marcy's attention to this 
river as one not mentioned by him in his report, he evmced surprise at 
learning of the existence of such a river in that vicinity. But no one who 
knows the names of Marcy and McClellan (and who does not?) would for a 
moment intimate that they were not faithful and painstaking in their explo- 
ration. But they did not know of Pease River, for the same reason that 
the Spaniards, who informed Humboldt, did not know cither it or the Ke- 
cheaquehono. They simply did not cross the river to the south side, where 
those streams entered the river; and they had a good reason for not doing 
so. The road which they traveled was continuously along the north bank 
of the North Fork, as represented by Humboldt's Rancho Stations de Mule- 
tiers. And it seems there was nothing to invite them across to the Keche- 
aquehono. The roving Indians did not venture there, because its waters 
were bitter and killed their children, as they told General Marcy; and this 
was a sufficient reason for the Spaniards. 

Humboldt's Road Stations on the North Fork and at the Bend and Forks of 

Red River. 

Humboldt, the greatest and most enterprising geographer of his age, if 
not of any age, shows that they had road stations for mule drivers, one on 
the north side of the river near the point of his 102d meridian of longitude, 
Marcy's 101st and Melish's 10'2d, and also one in the immediate vicinity of 
the Great Bend of the river, about where General Marcy located and marked 
the 100th meridian, and near where both Melish and Humboldt delineated 
the 101st meridian. The main fact here is that this road and these stations 
were at these points, which the United States Commissioners insist were 
wholly unknown to the treaty makers and Melish. How were they un- 
known, when we find Melisli copying his delineation of the course of Red 
River from the pomt of the Great Bend upward exactly from Humboldt's 
map, on which the road was pointed out along the river by these very tavern 
stands? How could the framers of the treaty suppose the river in tliat part 
was not .vnown, with this map of Humboldt before them? How could they 
fail to be informed of the great northward turn of the river one degree and 
a fraction west of where Melish and Humboldt both laid down the lOOth 
meridian on Red River, when both of these maps laid it down, and Hum- 
boldt informed them that at that point was a tavern stand, or road station, 
named Canoatinos, on a road which passed up Red River, and was marked 
by the similar stations above and below, named respectively San Calixto, 
Canisis and Quichicans? Surely it is not to be supposed that those men, 
engaged as the representatives of two great nations in negotiating a treaty 
of boundary, were simpletons, and did not take notice of these patent facts. 
We will be excused for the length of the foregoing argument, when it is 
remembered that the proposition or allegation of the United States Com- 
mission, which we have been combatting, is assumed by them to be a 
sufficient reason for discarding Melish's map and refusing to consider any 
evidence as to what stream was caJhd Red River at the date of the treaty, 
above the great right angular bend and fork of that river. After consider- 
ing the facts we have now collated, we think they must admit that the fact, 
alleged by them as a premise on which they based this determination, does 
not exist, and that they are now ready to consider the evidence advanced 
in our first argument, that the North Fork of Red River was always, as far 
back as the date of the treaty, known as Red River, and so called, and was 



—134— 

never known by any other name, and that as well might it be urged that 
because the Missouri River is a longer and broader stream, and drains more 
territory and furnishes more water to the channel below its mouth than the 
Mississippi, it should be considered the Mississippi, as to insist for these 
reasons that the Kecheaquehono is the Red River. It is admitted that it 
has the wider channel and the longer, and perhaps drains the larger terri- 
tory. But in that which in the main constitutes a river, the steady and 
continuous flow of water and the average quantity of that flow, there can 
be no doubt, from the evidence adduced, that it presents little claim to a 
favorable comparison with the North Fork. We have before fully pre- 
sented the evidence on this point. Shall it be said the superiority of the 
North Fork in these respects shall yield to the South Fork's superiority in 
the less important characteristics of a inver? We are willing to submit to 
the candid judgment of the Commissioners on the part of the United 
States on this point. 

But, as before remarked in our first alignment, we might admit all the 
facts alleged by the United States Commissioners in regard to the charac- 
teristics of these streams, and still the fact remains proved beyond the 
possibility of a doubt, that at the date of the treaty the North Fork of Red 
River was the Red River of Nachitoches, because it was known by that 
name and so called by all the inhabitants of that country, and no other 
branch of the river bore that name. It is, too, a fact of weighty consider- 
ation that this fork of the river liad the chai'acteristic which gave name to 
the river all the way to its mouth. Its waters were red, and its banks 
were of red clay, which gave the color to the water thence to its mouth. 
So emphatically was this so that the witness Young says that during his 
twenty odd years residence on Red River it was always known from the 
color of the water in Red River whether the rain which caused the rise 
fell on Prairie Dog Town, Salt Fork and Pease Rivers, which come into Red 
River from the south, or fell on the North Fork where its banks were red; 
and Capt. Marcy wrote of it thus: "The banks of red clay are from three 
to eight feet thick, the water extending entirely across its bed, and at this 
stage (a high stage) about six feet deep in the channel with a rapid current of 
four miles per hour, liighly charged with a dull red sedimeyitary matter.''' (Red 
River of Louisiana, page 15.) 

On the other hand, the same witnesses show that the Kecheaquehono did 
not possess this characteristic, but tliat the coloi' of its water was light, and 
its banks and sands also. 

Would it be reasonable, if we were hunting for the Upper Red River 
from other indications than the name it actually bore, to conclude that the 
stream which was red, with red banks and red water, was not the stream 
of which we were in search, and then to decide that the stream with the 
white banks, white sands and white water was the Red River? 

Want of Exact Agreement hetioeen the North Fork and the Delineation of the 
River in MelisKs Map no proof against the claim of tli.at Fork to he the Rio 
Roxo. 

It has been suggested tliat the upward course of Melish's Red River above 
the Great Bend does not exactly agree with the real course of the North 
Fork. 

That is true; but it presents a great abrupt bend from the general course 
of the river below the bend, as shown on the map, similar to that of which 
Pike and Humboldt had information, and the same abrupt right angular 



—135— 

bend shown by recent maps in evidence, which, as we have seen, identifies 
it with the North Pork, and it presents this bend in the same relative posi- 
tion to the bends of the Arkansas and the mountains to the nortliward 
which is shown by the recent maps, and is well known to exist on the 
ground; and though the course as laid down is not exactly correct for the 
North Fork, in respect to the points of the compass, it may be replied that 
it was not to be expected that in every respect any map would be exactly 
correct. The facilities for precise accuracy were not then so great as now; 
and hence the necessity of reference by a diagram to strongly marked and 
well defined natural landmarks, such as we have just mentioned. 

But as to the general course of the river, it will be observed, the two de- 
lineations very nearly agree. Melish's Red River, in its general course 
northwest, finds a common point with the North Pork of recent maps, on 
our blue and red diagram, and the two come together near the head of the 
latter. 

There is no controversy about the river below the bend ; but it will be 
observed, from our blue and red diagram, tliat the true general course of 
the river, marked in black, from the immediate vicinity of the great right 
angular bend to the point where General Marcy crossed the river just below 
the mouth of the Big Wichita, in 1852, differs about as much from the 
course laid down on Gillespie's map as it does from Melish's delineation. 
Captain Marcy had, by Captain McClellan's observations, determined the lat- 
itude on Otter Creek and below the mouth of the Big Wichita. The former as 
34 degrees 34 minutes 6 seconds, the latter 34 degrees 29 minutes. He also 
found the river, at the point near the Great Bend, where he marked the inter- 
section of the lOOth meridian, to be twenty miles from Otter Creek. It is an 
easy matter to demonstrate from these data that instead of the point where 
he marked the crossing of the 100th meridian being in the same latitude 
with his crossing below the mouth of the Big Wichita, as would appear 
from Gillespie's map, there is a difference of latitude between these points 
of about 14.2 miles, as shown on our diagram, in a stretch of about sixty 
miles. It is observable also that even Captain Marcy's map fails to show 
the fact here mentioned. But by reference to his Red River of Louisiana, 
pages 7, 18 and 20, it will be found he made the determinations as stated. 
This is referred to to show that map makers generally have not attempted 
more than an approximation to exact delineation; that the draftsmen do 
not always implicitly follow the observer; that they pay more attention to 
giving the grand topographical outline, showing relative positions, than to 
precise correctness of latitude and longitude. 

Correspondence in Relative Situation as to Great Natural Landfiiarks 

a Better Test. 

Look at Marcy's map! He shows the great right angular bend of 
main Red River and the North Fork, considered as the same river, and 
the mountains to the north thereof — the Wichita Mountains stretching 
nearly sixty miles northeast and southwest and just eastward of the North 
Fork, and other mountains at intervals up the northeastern bank, and then 
further westward a chain of other hills or mountains extending along the 
north side of the river, which he names Gypsum Bluffs. The grand 
features of the Red River of Melish at this point are the same great abrupt 
right angular bend in the general course of the river and the mountains 
northward an<l along the northeastern side of it. While Marcy's map, 
as we have seen, makes these prominent features the principal substance of 



—136— 

his map, he also laid down the Kecheaquehono, which he discovered, as 
coming frotn the west, but forming no great right angular bend from the 
general course of the stream below and having no mountains coursing its 
northeastern side. The great outline features shown by both his and 
Melish's map, it would seem, should be entirely sufficient to identify the 
stream delineated by Melish with the North Fork of Marcy, and at the 
same time show the want of identity with the Kecheaquehono. But there 
is another evidence which l)y itself ought to be convmcing. 

HumhohW s Upper Red River with Road Stations tvere Identical with MelisKs 
Upper Red River, and HitmhoJdfs Road Stations along the River were on 
the North Fork. 

It will be remembered that neither Humboldt, Pike nor Melish had m- 
formation of more than one stream in this region called Red River. Melish 
copied the idea of its source in the Snow Mountains from Humboldt and 
Pike. But as to the region of the lOOth meridian, as he laid it down, he 
followed Humboldt and Bringer (as we have before shown in our former 
argument), laying down the mountains and changing and correcting liis 
plates for that purpose, and materially altering Pike's delineation of the 
longitude of the great bend of Red River and conforming it to the more 
accurate delineation of Humboldt and Bringer. 

But on looking carefully at Humboldt's map in evidence we find marked 
on the north bank of his Upper Red River several road station settlements, 
called by him San Calixto, Canoatinos and Canesis. The sign by which 
these are characterized he explains in a foot note to mean " Rancho Stations 
de Muletiers," a mixed Spanish and French appellation, which Commissioner 
Beacli has kindly translated for us as meaning "a road station for mule- 
drivers." 

Along the Upper Red River (delineated by him) there was a road with 
settlements known by the names of "San Calixto," "Canoatinos" and 
"Canesis.'" These were there in 1804, when Humboldt's map was pub- 
lished, and they were on the north side of the river. 

Years afterwards, when the Spaniards had lost sway over that country, 
and no longer frequented those places with their immense cavalcades,* 
General Marcy, as we have seen, found the evidences of their former occu- 
pancy of these stations de muletiers on the North Fork of Red River in the 
decaying stumps of trees cut down a long time before, but he found no sign 
or trace of any previous habitation on the Kecheaquehono. Indeed, he 
states facts which show that tliat stream and its region were too inhospitable 
to attract these early inhabitants, and consequently makes it conclusive that 
these habitations and the old Spanish road from one to the other were along 
the North Fork. Per consequence, the stream delineated by Humboldt as 
Red River, with these settlements upon it, could be no other than the North 
Fork of Red River. 

Now let us take Melish's map, and beginning at the Great Bend, draw it 
(by the same scale with Huml)oldt's map, and with its own proper course in 
respect to the points of the (;ompass) upon the face of Humboldt's map, 
taking care to put the Great Bend of the one map exactly upon the point of 
the same bend on the other, and we will find that tlie upward course of 
Melish's Red River, in respect to the points of the compass, exactly coin- 
cides with tliat of Humboldt's delineation. 

*See Pike's uccouut of 2075 licad of beasts accompanying the expedition of Malgares of 
600 or 700 men. (Pike's Sources of the Mississippi, pages 142 and 143, notes.) 



—137— 

The conclusion then follows irresistibly that the delineation of Melish, so 
far as the upper Red River from the Great Bend is concerned, is taken 
exactly from Humboldt; and if that was a delineation of the North Fork of 
Red River, as we have just found it to be, then Melish's delineation over 
exactly the same course from the same point must represent that river also. 

We have thus seen that Humboldt certainly delineated the North Fork 
of Red River from the Great Bond upward, as shown by the road stations 
by which he marked it and the corresponding- testimony of Marcy, and that 
Melisli, by reason of identitij of ihlineation in respect to the points of the 
compass from the same point, delineated the same stream. 

But, as we have seen before, Melish identified the stream he delineated 
with the North Fork by another sign, which exists on the ground to-day a 
great fixed landmark. In place of the habitations (Rancho Stations de Mule- 
tiers) of Humboldt, he lined its northern banks with a delineation of hills 
and mountains, which correspond to those to-day found on the ground north 
of the Great Bend and extending along northeast of the North Fork, cor- 
responding to Marcy's Wichita Mountains and Gypsum Bluffs. 

Captain Marcy, not knowing probably of these old "ranclio stations de 
muletiers," attributed to the Comanches and Kiowas "numerous remains of 
stumps of trees which [he supposed] had been cut down by them at differ- 
ent times along the North Fork." but which ai'e more reasonably attributed 
to the people, the Spaniards, who were more accustomed to cut down trees. 
He, however, also noticed the vestiges of the camps of the Comanches every- 
where along the valley of the North Fork from the Wichita Mountains up- 
ward, which, with the old road stations, at the same time identify that 
stream as that Red River known to the Spaniards of Mexico, to which the 
Spanish officer told Lieutenant Pike they had '■^guides and. routes of traders to 
conduct" them, and as that river which Malgares descended to visit the Co 
manches. 

But Captain Marc3\ it will be remembered, also especially noted thar, no- 
where along the whole course of the Kecheaquehono was there any sign or 
trace of any former habitation or road. It will also be remembered that he 
saw signs of both north of the North Fork of Red River. See his Red 
River of Louisiana, page 86, and the following paragraph of his deposition 
in evidence: 

•' I was informed in New Mexico tliat the Mexicans were the only semi- 
civilized people who, for many years, ventured into the Comanche and 
Kioway country, and they only went there for traffic, transporting their 
merchandise in ox carts to Santa Fe, along the identical track which I 
followed in escorting California emigrants from Arkansas, in 18 49, where, 
as I said before, we found the greater ])art of the way a perfectly smooth 
prairie surface upon a high divide, admirably adapted to wagon travel, 
with abundance of good wood, water and grass, for camping purposes, and 
upon this route deep Mexican cart tracks, made when the ground was soft 
many years previous, were often observed, showing that the route had been 
traveled for a long time, but no such tracks, roads or trails were seen 
within the valley of Prairie Dog Town River, and no evidences of Indians 
having frequented that section were noticed there. As before stated, owing 
to the absence of good water, the sandy character of the soil along this 
river, and the formidable obstruction presented by the elevated and wide 
spur of the Staked Plains, and the extensive belt of gypsum crossing this 
route, the Mexicans would nevtn- have attempted to traverse it with their 
carts.";^ 

In this connection it may be well to notice that the Commissioners on the 

* There is a -well known natural and anciently used wagon road througJi a gorgtt auu across 
the Wicl^ita Mountains, north and east of the North Fork. 

From Marcy's report (pages 7 and 8), it appears his expedition was accompanied by a 
considerable train of wagons, "'a supply train" and company wagons; and from page 21, 
that he crossed the Wichita Mountains east of the North Fork and above Elk Creek over an 
old well worn road, which was passable for his wagons. Ho described it thus: ^'Taking 
an old Comanche trail this morning, I followed it to a narrow defile in the mountains, tvhich 
led me up through a very tortuous and rocky gorge, v:here the icell v:orn path indicated that it 
had been traveled for many years. It presented a most wild and romantic appearance as we 
passed along at the base of the cliffs which rose perpendicularly over our heads upon either 
side. We saw the tracks of several elk that had passed the defile the day previous. After 
crossing the mountains we descended upon the south side, where we found the river flowing 
directly at the base." 



—138— 

part of the United States have apparently attempted to throw doubt upon 
tliis statement by Captain Marcy, quoting from " Yoakuni''' Bean's account of 
Nolan's expedition, about the year 1800, as follows: 

"We built a pen and caught about three hundred of those wild horses. 
After some days the Comanche nation came to see us. They were a party 
of about two hundred men, women and children. We went with them to 
the South Fork of Red River to see their chief, hy the name of Nicoroco, where 
we staye'^ with them a month. A number of them had arrows pointed, 
some with stones, and others with copper. This last they procure in its 
virgin state in some mountains that run from the River Missouri across the 
continent to the Gulf of Mexico. During our stay with their chief, four or 
five nations that were at peace with him came to see us, and we were great 
friends." Page 403 says this was in 1800. 

Had Bean been better informed he would have stated the copper was to 
be found almost pure, in the greatest abundance, in that immediate neigh- 
borliood. But if it is intended by this quotation to suggest that the chief 
of the Indians referred to was found on the Prairie Dog Town River, 
where Marcy could find no trace of their camps, old or recent, it evidently 
must be a mistake, for m volume 1, page 405, line 29, Bean had just been 
made to say: 

" We came to Trinity River, and, crossing it, we found the big, open 
prairies of that country. We passed through the plains till we reached a 
spring, which we called the Painted Spring, because a rock at the head of 
it was painted by the Couianche and Pawnee nations, in a peace that was 
made there by these two nations. In the vast prairie there was no wood, or 
any other fuel than buffalo dung, which lay dry in great quantities. But we 
found that the buffalo had removed, and were getting so scarce that in three 
days after passing the spring, we were forced, in order to sustain life, to eat 
the flesh of wild horses, which we found in great quantities. For about 
nine days we were compelled to eat horse flesh, when we arrived at a river 
called the Brazos. Here we found elk and deer plenty, some ouft'alo, and 
wild horses by thousands." 

Now, between the waters of the Brazos, here mentioned by Bean, and 
the Prairie Dog Town River, lay both the Big Wichita and Pease Rivers, 
which were in close proximity to the Comanche country, and both of them 
south forks of Red River, and on divers maps in evidence Pease River 
is delineated as "South Pork." 

Small Unnamed Affluent of MelisKs Upper Red River. 

We have said Melish followed Humboldt in delineating but a single 
stream for Upper Red River, which is shown to have been the North Fork 
by Humboldt's "Rancho Stations de Muletiers" on its banks, taken in con- 
nection with Marcy's testimony that no traces of habitation could be discov- 
ered on Kecheaquohono, while such old signs were abundant on the North 
Fork. But it may be objected that Melish does delineate an unnamed smaller 
stream as a confluent of Upper Red River. This we have before, in our 
first argument, admitted. The fact that he gave it no name, however, shows 
its existence and character were doubted. It is now accounted for suffi- 
ciently by the several streams Cache Creek, Otter Creek, Elk Creek and 
Sweetwater, all of which, as Captain Marcy showed, are large creeks, cours- 
ing along the general course of the river at different points between the 
mountains and the river for a distance amounting to near two hundred 
miles, each reaching in close proximity to the next of these creeks above it. 



—139— 

But Melish shows that lie did not intend to represent by this unnamed 
stream any very considerable watercourse. We are opportunely supplied 
with the following extract from ''A geographical description of tiie United 
States, with the contiguous Britisli and Spanish possessions; intended as an 
accompaniment to Melish's map of these countries; by John Melish; Phila- 
delphia; published by the author; 1818:" 

Page 42, line 5: "The Red River rises in the mountains to the eastward 
of Santa Fe, between north latitudes 37 and 38 degrees, and pursuing a 
general southeast course, makes several remarlcahle bends, as exhibited on the 
map; hut it receives no very considerable streams until it forms a junction xoilh the 
Wachita and its great mass of waters, a few miles before it reaches the Missis- 
sippi.'" 

He, however, gave names to the Kiamichi, Vasour, Blue AVater and False 
AVichita. But Cache Creek, Otter Creek, Elk Creek and Sweetwater Creek, 
all bold running creeks, from forty to sixty miles long and severally corres- 
ponding in position to different parts of this unnamed affluent, he does not 
delineate at all, unless they were supposed to constitute one continuous small 
affluent lying between the mountains and hills and the river, as all these 
creeks are shown by Captain Marcy to do. (See his Red River of Louisiana.) 

Sinnniary and Conclusion as to the Red River of tlie Treaty. 

We have now reviewed the facts, material and immaterial, covered by 
the argument of the Commissioners on the part of the United States, with- 
out touching upon their theories of geographers We trust they will admit 
that we have shunned no facts, and have been quite "as frank and explicit" 
as themselves. 

We trust that we have shown not only that their assumption of ignor- 
ance in the treaty makers was a mistake of their own, but that the region 
of country about the boundai^y in question must have been well known to 
any person as much interested in knowing it as the parties to the treaty, 
and also that the North Fork of Red River, as known to-day, was the very 
stream delineated on Melish's map and on Humboldt's map as the Rio 
Roxo of Nachitoches. 

Theories of Geoyraphers. 

The Commissioners on the part of the United States have devoted much 
attention to a discussion of theories of geographers, which we have not 
thus far noticed, and with which we think this Commission, strictly speaking, 
has nothing to do, but which we now propose to notice. The suggestion, 
however absurd it may appear, seems to be that Melish's map, in its 
delineation of Upper Red River, was entirely theoretical, and so under- 
stood to be by the treaty makers, 

To the end of showing this, they have attempted a comparison of Melish's 
streams with what they term the true course of the streams delineated in 
black on a copy of the map of Melish, in red. In doing this, we believe 
they made the base of their comparison some point in the Lower Red River, 
hundreds of miles from the point of real interest, and have made the com- 
parison by the theoretical lines drawn to I'epresent longitude and latitude, 
instead of by the leading outlines of the topography of the neighborliood 
of the boundary in question. There would have been some reason in a 
comparison between the relative positions of the well known natural 
features of the country about the siius of the boundary in question, deline- 
ated on Melish's map, with the same on recent maps. Had they made 



—140— 

such a comparison they would have been saved much theorizing, and would 
have at once discovered that the identity of Melish's Upper Red River — 
the only one in the neighborhood which is of any interest to this Commis- 
sion — with the real Red River and its neighborhood on the ground, and as it 
is represented in recent maps, is fully shown and its accuracy as a delineation 
demonstrated to be very remarkable for its day and time. They would 
have discovered that the error of Melish was not so much in the delineation 
of the face of the country, its real rivers, their real junctions, real rela- 
tive courses and bends, the real mountains, etc., in respect to their relative 
topographical situation, as in the application to his map of the theoretical 
lines for longitude and latitude. They would have at once discovered that 
as to the immediate region of country of interest to this Commission, from 
Red River to the Arkansas inclusive, the errors in the application of the 
lines of latitude and longitude were general and not local, and extended 
alike to the whole face of the country along the line of the 100th meridian, 
as he laid it down, not affecting the relative topographical situations of the 
two rivers and their notable surrounding landmarks at all. 

In their attempted superposition of maps, so far as respects the region 
where it was, and is, desirable to make comparison — the region of the 
boundary in question — they fail to bring the two maps together on any 
well known and indisp)utable point; such, for instance, as the great bends 
of the Arkansas and Red Rivers or the Wichita Mountains delineated on 
both maps; and hence fail in toto of any comparison that pertains to the 
issue before the Commission. In their attempted superposition they separate 
one and all of these and all other well known points of that region, on the 
one map from the same points on the other, by great distances, entirely 
losing sight of the obvious fact, that a superposition which does not super- 
pose any one well known point of the region in question on the one map 
upon the same point on the other is not a superposition at all. 

In fact, the object of their attempted superposition seems to have been 
merely to illustrate a theory of geographers, and not to discover the points 
of identity between the two maps in respect to the localities of the region 
in question. 

We have illustrated what we mean by the comparison made in our red 
and blue diagram, heretofore presented.* 

We are not map makers, and our sketch is not artistic, but it will serve 
the purpose. The comparison it institutes, in connection with the forego- 
ing, we deem a full answer to all the theories of the (Commissioners of the 
United States. 

But, passing from their geographical theories, we cannot omit to notice 
again that the United States Commissioners have entirely ignored 

Tlie Most Important Issue before the Commission . 

'According to the terms of the treaty," the Red River was to be followed 
westwardly, without any respect to latitude, to a line of longitude, that of the 
\00tJi meridian "as laid down in Melish^s m.aj-)." 

An issue based upon any other line than the 100/A meridian as laid down, 
in that ma]), must be a false issue, because the work of the Commission is 
required to be done "in accordance with the terms of the treaty." 

But tlie argument we are reviewing seems to ignore this requirement 
utterly, though it was expressly imposed by the act of Congress. We, 
however, feel bound to consider the terms of the treaty — the woixls 

*Soc our Additional Argumcat, pages 110 and 111. 



—141— 

^^The ivhole being as laid doivn in IfeJish^s Map.'' 

If the Commissioners on the part of the United States couUl be induced 
to give due weight to these words, it seems to us there could ho no room 
for controversy. 

These words closed up a verbal description of the whole boundary. The 
main issue before this Commission is. What do they mean when applied to 
tlie part of the boundary from Red River to the Arkansas River? 

Whore does the line of the 10 0th meridian of west longitude from Lon- 
don as laid down on Melish's map cross Red River? 

Hmo the tvjo Governments have treated tlie Line in question. 

For thirty-three years after the treaty was entered into it was not known 
certainly that there ever would bo any practical difference between the line 
of tlie 100th meridian as it was laid down in Melish's map and the abso- 
lutely true 100th meridian. But in 185:3 the United States ordered an offi- 
cer of her army, Captain R. 13. Marcy (now General Maicy), to make a sur- 
vey of Red River from the mouth of Cache Creek to the sources of that 
river. The order was in the following words: 

"Adjutant General's Office, ) 
'•Washington, March 5, 1852. \ 
"Special Orders No. 23. 

"Captain R. B. Marcy, 5th Infantry, with his company as an escort, will 
proceed without unnecessary delay to make an examination of Red River 
and the country bordering upon it. from the mouth of Cache Creek to its 
sources, according to the special instructions with which he will be fur- 
nished. On completing the exploration. Captain Marcy will proceed to 
Washington to prepare his report. 

"Brevet Captain G. B. McClellan, Corps of Engineers, is assigned to duty 
with this expedition. Upon the completion of the field service, he will re- 
port to Brevet Major-General Smith, the commander of the 8th Department. 

"The necessary supplies of subsistence and quartermaster's stoi-es will be 
furnished from the most convenient depots in the 7th or 8th Military De- 
partment. 

"By command of Major-General Scott. 

" R. Jones, Adjutant-General." 

(Marcy's Red River of Louisiana, page 1.) 

We are not informed what ^'■special instructions''' were given Captain 
Marcy. But it is presumed that one of the most notable works of the ex- 
pedition performed was embraced in them. 

On the ;30th of May, 1852. Captain Marcy made entry in his journal tliat 
Captain McClellan had just returned to camp from marking the I Ooth me- 
ridian at its intersection with Red River, and that he had marked it at a 
point about six miles below the junction of the two principal branches and 
three-fourths of a mile below a small creek which puts in from the north, 
upon the left bank, near where the river bends from almost due west to 
north. (See Red River of Louisiana, page 19.) This he considered and 
reported as the boundary between the Indian Territory and Texas. (Id., 
page 18.) 

Texas had no formal notice and was not a party to this marking of a line 
for the lOOth meridian. The line, in fact, as marked by Captain Marcy, 
intersected the river about a degree or more west of the intersection as laid 
down on ]\Ielish's map. The United States acted upon it until 1859, by her 
Indian agents, who confined the settlement of the Indians to the eastward 



—142— 

of that line. The Eepublic and State of Texas had occupied and exercised 
military jurisdiction to the vicinity of the Wichita Mountains for many 
years (see deposition of S. P. Ross, page 88 of our printed pamplilet; J. S. 
Ford, Id., page 45; H. P. Bee, Id., page 47; Geo. B. Erath, pages 11 and 
12; W. A. Pitts, page 50), that is, up to the immediate vicinity of the line 
thus marked by the United States. There was a mutual practical recogni- 
tion of that neighl)orhood as being about the line by both governments, and 
according to a well recognized principle of law this mutual tacit agreement, 
acted upon by both parties, it would seem, should have been binding upon 
both. 

But in 1859 the United States, by an officer of the army, and her contract 
surveyors, who were interested, doubtless, in extending their contract for 
surveying the Indian Territory, invaded the country west of this line and 
ran and marked another line for the 100th meridian about a degree farther 
west, and the contract surveyors proceeded to divide the country between 
the two lines into townships, and perhaps sections. Our Commission has 
been informed, whether truly or not we do not know, that the government 
of the United States at that time refused to recognize and pay for this work. 
Be that as it may, Texas, by her Governor, at once protested against it. 

Tlie Words of the Treaty Become of Great Importance. 

This brings us to the time when tlie words of the treaty, which the 
United States Commissioners, in their argument, fail to consider, became 
of considerable moment to Texas. 

The boundary of the lOOth meridian, as marked by the United States, 
was traveling westward. Texas proposed a boundary commission. For a 
number of years efforts by both governments were made in that direction 
without any practical result. 

Finally, in January, 1885, an act of congress authorized this joint com- 
mission, and recited that the point where the line " as described in the treaty''' 
crossed Red River had "never been ascertained and fixed by any authority 
competent to bind tlie United States and Texas;'" and this commission were 
required by said act to ascertain and mark the point of crossing "i'/i accord- 
ance with the terms of the treaty.'''' 

This was in response to an act of the legislature of the State of Texas, of 
May 2, 1882, the first section of which provides for such a commission, and, 
•m the terms of the treaty, expressly required her Commissioners to '• run 
and mark the boundary lines ... as follows: Beginning at a point 
where a line drawn north from the intersection of the thirty-second degree 
of north latitude with the western bank of the Sabine River crosses Red 
River, thence following the course of said river westwardly to the degree 
of longitude one hundred west from London and twenty-three degrees 
west from Washington, as said line toas "laid down in Melish's map of tlie 
United States, 2^ubh'shed at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818, 
and designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, made February 
22, A. D. 1819." Tlius luas the work of this Commission limited, and required 
to be done in accordance with the terms of the treaty, by both the act of congress 
and that of the legislature of Texas. 

We have examined those terms, and given it as our opinion that according 
to them the line of boundary in question was to be as laid down in Melish's 
map, which would place it eastward of the junction of the North and 
South Fork, whether that be the true lOOth meridian or not; and in our 
argument of the 26th of June we endeavored to show that this must be so, 



—143— 

according to the plain and obvious meaning of the words of the treaty, in 
connection with tlie delineation on the map (pages 107 to 114) and accord- 
ing to the intention of the parties, as evidenced by "the circumstances in 
which the contract" of treaty "was made," and the clear and unequivocal 
terms which the parties had used on a previous similar occasion, in the 
negotiation which led to the final agreement. (Pages 114 to 122.) To 
ascertain the circumstances under which the treaty was made and the sense 
in which the parties had previously used these and corresponding words, 
we reviewed the history of the negotiation, and therefrom deduced, as we 
think, conclusive evidence of what they intended by the words, " the whole 
being as laid down in Melish's map," in respect to the boundary along the 
100th meridian, to-wit: that the real position of the hundredth meridian 
being uncertain by reason of the widely dilferent delineations of Melish 
and Pike on their respective maps, and it being their intention to make 
everything certain as far as practicable, they made choice of Melish's map 
for that purpose, and agreed that this line (as well as other lines) of the 
boundary should be as laid down on that map, in order that it might not 
subsequently be shifted further to the east, to the line of Pike's 100th 
meridian, for instance, nor to the west of a more western line, fixed and 
defined by bends of the Arkansas and Red Rivers, which they had con- 
sidered and rejected. We i-egret the United States Commission have 
seemingly overlooked that argument, to which we again invite their atten- 
tion, and we now beg leave to submit to their candid consideration legal 
authorities in support of that argument, which we have collated from 
sources that should command attention. Wheaton's International Law; 
Vattel's Law of Nations, with Chitty's Notes; Escrechi's Dictionary of 
Legislation and Jurisprudence; Civil Law of Rome, by Colquhoun; and the 
Supreme Court of the United States. 

First, then, on the Interpretation of Thxaties. 

" Public treaties are interpreted like other laws and contracts." (Whea- 
ton on International Law, chap. 11, page 355.) 

" That is, we are to construe a treaty as we would construe any other in- 
strument, public or private; we collect from the natui-e of the subject, from 
the words and the context, the true intent and meaning of the contracting 
parties, whether they are A and B, or happen to be two independent states. 

"The principles of the civil law tie obligationibus (which is the law 
admitted by all nations in Europe, by most in their domestic, and by all in 
national questions) must be allowed to arbitrate in deciding the validity, 
existence and meaning of a public treaty, by the same rules and reasonings 
as when applied to any other contract of private life. Words or characters 
are merely used to convey by marks or sounds the ideas of consent and to 
preserve the memory of compacts. Now, the end being thus principally to 
be considered and the means being regarded only as declarative of the end, 
if by any other means than by strict words, a contract is implied, it is 
undoubtedly valid whenever there appears from any acts or reasonable 
interpretation of signs an acknowledged consent and equitable foundations 
of contracting." . . . (Chief Justice Eyre in Marryatt vs. Wilson, 
1 Bos. and Pul., 336-439, quoted by Jos. Chitty in Vattel's Law of 
Nations, note page 244, ed. 1854.) 

Extracts from Vattel's Maxims of Interpretation of Treaties: 

"The first general maxim of interpretation is that. It is not allowahle to 
interpret what has no need of interpretation. When a deed is worded in clear 



—144— 

and precise terms, when its meaning is evident and leads to no absurd con- 
clusion, there can be no reason for refusing to admit the meaning which 
such deed naturally presents." . . . (Vattel's Law of Nations, page 
254.) 

" If the intention which is sufficiently declared were not to be taken of 
course as the true intention of him who speaks and enters into engagements, 
it would be perfectly useless to form contracts or treaties." (Id., page 245.) 

"In the interpretation of a treaty, or of any other deed whatsoever, the 
question is to discover what the contracting parties have agreed upon — to 
determine precisely on any particular occasion what has been promised or 
accepted; that is to say, not only what one of the parties intended to prom- 
ise, but also what the other must reasonably and candidly have supposed to 
be promised to him — what has been sufficiently declared to him and what 
must have influenced him in his acceptance. Every deed, therefore, and 
every treaty must be interpreted by certain fixed rules, calculated to deter- 
mine its meaning as naturally understood by the parties concerned at the 
time when the deed was drawn up and accepted." . . . (Id., page 246.) 

'■Since the sole object of the lawful interpi-etation of a deed ought to be 
the discovery of the thoughts of the author or authors of that deed, ivlien- 
ever we meet with any obscurity in it we are to consider what probably were 
the ideas of those who drew up the deed, and to interpret it accordingly. 
This is the general rule for all interpretations." (Id., 247.) 

"In the interpretation of treaties, compacts and promises, we ought not 
to deviate from the common use of the language, unless we have very strong 
reasons for it." (Id., 248.) . . . " It is then a gross quil)ble to affix 
a particular sense to a word in order to elude the true sense of the entire 
expression." (Id., 249.) 

"Every interpretation that leads to an absurdity ought to be rejected." 
(Id., 252.) 

"If he who has expressed himself in an obscure or equivocal manner has 
spoken elsewhere more clearly on the same subject, he is the best inter- 
preter of his own words. We ought to interj^ret his obscure or equivocal 
expressions in such a manner that they may agree with those clear and un- 
equivocal terms which he has elsewdiere used, either in the same deed or oji 
some other similar occasion. In fact, while we have no proof that a man has 
changed his mind or manner of thinking, it is presumed that his thoughts 
have been the same on similar occasions, so that if he has anywhere clearly 
shown his intention with respect to a certain thing, we ought to affix the 
same meaning to what he has elsewhere obscurely said on the same subject." 
(Id., 254.) 

"The interpretation ought to be made in such a manner that all the parts 
may appear consonant to each other — that what follows may agree with 
what preceded — unless it evidently apjwar that hy the subsequent clauses the par- 
ties intended to make some alteration in the preceding ones.''' (Id., 255.) 

"The reason of the law or of the treaty — that is to say, the motive which 
led to the making of it, and the object in contemplation at the time — is the 
most certain clue to lead us to the discovery of its true meaning; and great 
attention should be paid to this circumstance, whenever there is question 
eitlier of explaining an obscure, ambiguous, indeterminate passage in a law 
or treaty, or of applying it to a particular case. When once we certainly 
know the reason which alone has determined the will of the person speak- 
ing, we ought to interpret and apply his words in a manner suitable to that 
reason alone. Otherwise he will be made to speak and act contrary to his 
intention and in opposition to his own views." (Id., page 256.) 



—145— 

" In unforeseen cases, that is to say wlien the state of things liappens to be 
such as the author of a deed lias not foreseen and could not have thought 
of, we should rather be guided by his intention than by his words, and in- 
terpret the instrument as he himself would interpret it if he were on the 
spot, or conformably to what he would have done if ho had foreseen the 
circumstances which are at present known." (Id., 262.) 

In the first place, everything that tends to the common advantage in convcn- 
lions or that has a tendency to place the contracting parties on a footing of equality 
is favor able. The voice of equity and the general rule of contracts require 
that the conditions between the parties should be equal. We are not to 
presume, without very strong reasons, that one of the contracting parties 
intended to. favor the other to his own prejudice; but there is no danger in 
extending what is for common advantage. If, therefore, it happens that the 
contracting parties have not made known their will with sufiicient clearness 
and with all the necessary precision, it is certainly more conformable to 
equity to seek for that will in the sense most favorable to equality and the 
common advantage than to suppose it in a contrary sense. 

''For the same reason everything that is not for the common advantage, every- 
tiling that tends to destroy the equality of a contract, everything tJiat onerates only 
one of the parties, or that onerates the one more than the other, is odious." (Id., 



264.) 

•' Wl 



^hen the question relates to things favorable, we ought to give the 
terms the utmost latitude of which they are susceptible according to the 
common usage of the language; and if a term has more than one significa- 
tion, the most extensive meaning is to be preferred; for equity ought to be 
the rule of conduct with all mankind wherever a perfect is not exactly de- 
termined and known in its precise extent. . . . Now, when there is 
question of favorable things, the more extensive signification of the 
terms accords better with equity than the more confined signification." (Id., 
266 and 267.) 

"We should, when there is question of odious things, interpret the terms 
in the most limited sense; we may even, to a certain degree, adopt a figura- 
tive .meaning, in order to avert the oppressive consequences of the proper 
and literal sense, or anything of an odious nature, which it would involve; 
for we are to favor equity and do away with everything odious as far as 
can be accomplished without going in direct opposition to the tenor of the 
instrument or visibly wresting the text." (Id., 268.) 

In regard to "collisions or oppositions of laws or treaties," the author 
says: 

"If the collision happen between two adii'mative laws or two affirmative 
treaties concluded between the same persons or the same states, that which 
is of more recent date claims a preference over the older one, for it is 
evident that since both laws or both treaties have emanated from the same 
power, the subsequent act was capable of derogating from the former." 
(Id. 272.) 

From Escriche's Dictionary of Legislation and Jurisprudence — Interpretation of 
Agreements and Contracts. 

Doubts arising as to the meaning of the stipulations of a contract must 
be solved according to the following rules of interpretation: 

1st. In all contracts more regard must be had to the mutual intentions 
of the parties than to the literal meaning of the words. The intention of 
the parties may be ascertained by taking into consideration the nature of 



—146— . 

the business, the circumstances in which the contract was made, the motives 
whicli may reasonably have prompted it, the actions of the parties subse- 
quent to making the contract and bearing upon the point in controversy, 
and what is more probable according to the habits of the parties and cus- 
toms of the land. 

2d. "When a stipulation admits of two meanings, one conducive to, and 
the other not conducive to its execution, tlie most plausible meaning should 
be accepted; for it should not be presumed that two persons endowed with 
reason wished to stipulate meaningless articles. However, if the stipulation 
should be interpreted, in order to give it effect, as being contrary to law or 
to good morals, or to the manifest intention of the contracting parties, or 
either of them, it should be rejected and held as not having been made. 

3d. When a stipulation may be carried into effect with the meaning 
given to it by one of the parties and with that given to it by the other 
party, the interpretation must be adopted which comes nearer to truth and 
justice; but if truth can not be ascertained by that means, the obscure 
words should be interpreted against the party who inserted them, and in 
favor of the other party. 

4tli. Expressions susceptible of two meanings must be interpreted in 
the acceptation which is most adaptable to the nature or object of the 
contract. 

5tli. In douhtful cases, resulting from obscurity or ainhiguiiy, and tlic loiU of 
the parties is not aj)purcnt, tJie practice of the land in similar cases must he 
adhered to. 

6th. The usual and necessary stipulations must be considered as inserted 
in a contract, even if they have not been expressed, because contracts 
obligate not only to whatever is therein expressed, but also to all the con- 
sequences given to them by equity, custom and law. In a deed uf sale the 
warranty clause is supposed, although not inserted in the instrument. 

lih. All the clauses of a contract are interpreted one by another, giving 
to each of them the meaning resulting from the whole context of the in- 
strument. 

8th. If a doubt can not be solved by the means above stated, it must 
be adjudicated against the grantor and in favor of the debtor, who should 
be presumed to have assumed the less rigorous obligation. 

9th. However general may be the terms in whicli an agreement is 
drawn, it can not, in any case, contain more than what the contracting 
parties intended and contracted for. 

lOtli. When a special case is expressed in a contract, in order to remove 
any doubt as to that case, the extension given by law to the obligation must 
not be considered as restricted with regard to the cases not therein ex- 
pressed. 

11th. When no interpretation can be made without resulting in an evil, 
damage or injury, the less unjust interpretation must be adopted, by the 
general rule that the least of two evils should be chosen. 

I certify that the foregoing is a correct translation of the rules of 
interpretation as found in " Escriche's Dictionary of Legislation and Juris- 
prudence," Madrid edition, page 927 et seq. ; the preface to which bears 
date May 14, 1851. 

X. B. Debkay, 
Spanish Clerlv and Translator, General' Land Office of Texas. 
Austin, July 3d, 1886. 



—147— 

Conclusions of Laxv from the Forcyoing. 

From the foregoin<jj autliorities it appears that treaties are to be inter- 
preted just like any contract, deed or convention between private parties, 
and according to the maxims of the civil law. 

That the prime and only object of such interpretation is to ascertain the 
intention of the contracting parties, lohich must prevail, even if it be contrary 
to the express literal meaning of the words used. 

And in order to this, we may examine into the history of the negotiation 
which led to final agreement to find " the circumstances in which the con- 
tract was made " and " the motives which may i-easonably have prompted it." 

We have endeavored to follow in the line of these maxims in our argu- 
ment heretofore submitted. And now, in accordance with Escriche's rule 
5th, we desire to inquire into 

"T/ie Practice of the Land" — 

the rulings of the courts of highest resort — in regard to such expressions as 
the words "the whole being as laid down in Melish's map," when found in a 
deed, contract or agreement. The rule is, that in case of "doubt resulting 
from obscurity, . . . and the will of the parties is not apparent, the 
practice of the land in similar cases must be adhered to." 

The woi'ds in question seem to be differently understood l^y the two parts 
of tlie Commission, and it would seem there can be no agi-eement unless the 
law of the case as we may find it shall carry conviction. 

The maxim from Escriche refers us to the practice of tJic land for the ex- 
position of these words, which practice can only be found in the rulings of 
the courts of highest i-esort. 

Fiecollecting that treaties are to be construed as any other contract, or as 
any deed, let us inquire what, then, is the practice of the land as to contracts 
in cases similar to the one in hand; that is — 

1st. In respect to contracts, deeds, agreements, etc., wherein maps or 
plats are referred to as a part of the description of the land conveyed or 
contracted about. 

L^d. When a deed or contract for a tract of land, after giving its boun- 
dary by field notes, showing the courses and distances of its lines, refers 
to a map or plat for a further description, what efl^ect has such a map or 
plat? Is it to be considered as much a part of the deed or conti-act as any 
other part of it or not? 

3d. If it must be considered as much a part of the deed or contract 
as if inserted in it, and it is found to contain delineations of natural objects 
or landmarks across, within or about the boundaries described in the field 
notes, that are not mentioned in the field notes, and it is also found that, 
according to the calls of the field notes, independent of the reference to the 
map, the boundary would lie in an entirely different relative position to 
those natural landmarks from that shown by the map or plat, what influ- 
ence or effect then does the practice of the land give to the map or plat? 
Which shall control the other, and wliich shall yield to the other, the calls 
for course and distance or the map? Shall the lines of the land be run ac- 
cording to the field notes, or shall they be run as laid down on the map? 
They cannot be run both ways. 

Fortunately, we are not left in doubt on this subject by the practice of 
the land — the rulings of the courts of the highest resort. 



—148— 

The Practice Under the Civil Law, 

in countries where it prevailed, is to be gathered from the following ex- 
tract from Colquhoun's Civil Law of Rome, Vol. I, page 478: 

"The twelve tables provided for the appointment of three arbitri, who 
were to be agri mensores, or professional engineers. . . . The Romans 
had the most exact surveys, not only in Italy, but also in the provincial lands, 
municipalities and colonies; and so accurate were these, that not only were 
the mere boundaries of contiguous states laid down, but even the hedges 
and olive trees, together with the number of slaves, buildings, etc., were 
mai'ked or scheduled; these maps were engraved on tables of brass, and 
deposited in the cerarium at Rome. In case of municipalities and the 
like, the original was preserved in like manner, but a copy printed off 
on linen from the engraving was sent to the locality to which it applied. 
These surveys being made on an accurate scale, there was, therefore, very 
little difficulty in an agrimensor ascertaining the exact spot, and by 
measuring from any fixed points about which he entertained no doubt, he 
could easily settle a boundary in a far more satisfactory manner than by 
examining peasant people." . , . (Roman Civil Law, by Colquhoun, 
Vol. I, page 478.) 

From the peculiarity of the Civil law, as indicated by Colquhoun in this 
extract, it appears, so high authority was given to the land maps traced on 
tables of brass and printed on linen, that they were deemed the only 
evidence worthy to be considered in questions of boundary. The Civil law 
prevailed in Spain and made its impress also upon the land of the Monte- 
zumas. 

The Practice in the United States. 

In the United States there were no ^' argri mensores'" for "arbitri.''^ 
Instead, juries were used to find the facts from all the evidence, while the 
law applicable to the facts found was delivered from the bench by men 
learned in the law. That we may see what these judges of the law have 
held concerning maps and plats, and how far they concurred with the 
practice under the rules of the twelve tables, we here subjoin the reports of 
two decisions of the highest court of the United States, in which they 
declare the law relative to maps, referred to for description in deeds or 
contracts, in cases covering every point in the question we are investigating: 

"Mclver's Lessee vs. Walker et al. — Error to the Circuit Court for the 
District of East Tennessee. This was an ejectment brought in that court 
by the plaintiff in error against the defendants. Upon the first trial of the 
cause a judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court in favor of the defend- 
ants, and upon that judgment a writ of error was taken out and the judg- 
ment reversed by this court at the February term, 1815, and the cause was 
sent back to be tried according to certain directions prescribed by this 
court. 

•'As the opinion given by this court upon reversal of the first judgment 
contains a statement of the facts given in evidence upon the first trial, it is 
• deemed proper to insert the opinion in this place. It is as follows: On the 
trial of this cause the plaintiff produced two patents for 5000 acres each, 
from the State of North Carolina, granting to Stockley Donelson (from 
whom the plaintiff derived his title) two several tracts of land lying on Cow 
Creek, the one. No. 12, beginning at a box elder standing on a ridge, corner 
to No. 11, etc., as by the plat hereto annexed loill ap)2)car. The plat and certifi- 
cate of survey were annexed to the grant. The plaintiff proved that there 



—149— 

were eleven other grants of the same date for 5000 acres each, issued from 
the State of North Carolina, designated as a chain of surveys joining each 
other, from No. 1 to No. 1 1 inclusive, each calling for land on Cow Creek as 
a general call, and the courses and distances of which, as described in the 
grants, are the same with the grants produced to the jury. It was also 
proved that the beginning of the first grant was marked and intended as 
the beginning corner of No. 1, but no other tree was marked, nor was any 
survey ever made, but the plat was made out at Raleigh, and does not ex- 
press on its face that the lines were run by the true meridian. It was also 
proved that the beginning corner of No. 1 stood on the northwest side of 
Cow Creek, and the line running thence down the creek called for in the 
plat and patent is south forty degrees west. It further appeared that Cow 
Creek runs through a valley of good land, which is on an average about 
three miles wide, between mountains unfit for cultivation, and which extends 
from the beginning of survey No. I in the said chain of surveys until it 
reaches below survey No. 13, in nearly a straight line, the course of which 
is nearly south thirty-five degrees west by the needle and south forty de- 
grees west by the true meridian; that in the face of the plats annexed to 
the grants the creek is represented as running through and across each 
grant. The lines in the certificate of survey do not expressly call for cross- 
ing the creek; but each certificate and grant calls generally for land lying 
on Cow Creek. If the lines of the ti-acts hereinbefore mentioned, Nos. 12 
and 18 in the said chain of surveys, be run according to the course of the 
needle and the distances called for, they will not include Cow Creek or any 
part of it, and will not include the land in possession of the defendants. If 
they be run according to the true meridian, or so as to include Cow Creek, 
they will include the lands in possession of the defendants. Whereupon 
the counsel for the plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jur}--: 1st. 
That the lines of the said lands ought to be run according to the true me- 
ridian, and not according to the needle. '2d. That the lines ought to 
be run so as to include Cow Creek and the lands in possession of the de- 
fendants. 

" The court overruled both these motions, and instructed the jury that the 
said grant must be run according to the course of the needle and the dis- 
tances called for in the said grants, and that the same could not legally be 
run so as to include Cow Creek, and that the said grants did not include the 
lands in possession of the defendants. 

"To this opinion an exception was taken by the plaintiff's counsel. A 
verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants, and that judgment 
is now before this court on a writ of error. It is undoubtedly the 2Jractice of 
surveyors, and the practice was p7-oved in this cause, to express in their plats and 
certificates of survey the courses wJiich are designated by the needle; and if 
nothing exists to control the call for courses and distance, the land must be 
bounded by the courses and distances of the patent, according to the 
magnetic meridian. 

" But it is a general principle that the course and distance must yield to 
natural objects called for in the patent. All lands are supposed to be 
actually surveyed, and the intention of the grant is to convey the land 
according to that actual survey; consequently, if marked trees and marked 
corners be found conformably to the calls of the patent, or if water 
courses be called for in the patent, or mountains, or any other natural 
objects, distances must be lengthened or shortened and courses varied so 
as to conform to those objects. The reason of the rule is that it is the 
intention of the grant to convey the land actually surveyed, and mistakes 



—150— 

in courses and distances are more probable and more frequent than in 
marked trees, mountains, rivers or otlier natural objects capable of being 
clearly designated and accurately described. Had the survey in this case 
been actually made, and the lines had called to cross Cow Creek, the 
courses and distances might have been precisely what they are, it might have 
been impracticable to find corner or other marked trees, and yet the land 
must have been so surveyed as to include Cow Creek. The call in the 
lines of the patent to cross Cow Creek would be one to which course and 
distance must necessarily yield. This material call is omitted, and from its 
omission arises the great difficulty of the cause. That the lands should 
not be described as lying on both sides of Cow Creek, nor the lines call for 
crossing that creek, are such extraordinary omissions as to create considera- 
ble doubt with the court in deciding whether there is any other description 
given in the patent of sufficient strength to control the call for course 
and distance. The majority of the court is of opinion that there is such a 
description. The patent closes its description of the land granted by 
reference to the plat which is annexed. The laws of the state require 
this annexation. In this plat thus annexed to the patent and thus referred 
to as describing the land granted, Cow Creek is laid down as passing 
through each tract. Every person having knowledge of the grant would 
also have knowledge of the plat, and would by that plat be instructed that 
the lands lay on both sides the creek. There would be nothing to lead to 
a different conclusion, but a difference of about five degrees in the course, 
should he run out the whole chain of surveys in order to find the beginning 
of No. 12; and he would know that such an error in the course would be 
corrected by such a great natural object as a creek laid down by the 
surveyor in the middle of his plat. This would prove, notwithstanding 
the error in the course, that the lands on both sides of Cow Creek were 
intended to be included in the survey, and intended to be granted by the 
patent. It is the opinion of the majority of this court that there is error 
in the opinion of the Circuit Court for the District of East Tennessee; in 
this, that said court instructed the jury that the grant under which the 
plaintiff claimed could not be legally run so as to include Cow Creek; 
instead of directing the jury that the said grant must be so run as to 
include Cow Creek and to conform as near as may be to the plat annexed 
to the said grant; wherefore, it is considered by this court that said judg- 
ment be reversed and annulled, and the cause remanded to the said Circuit 
Court, that a new trial may be had according to law." 

Upon another trial in the Circuit Court of Tennessee judgment again went 
for the defendants, and upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the 
United States this cause was argued and re-argued at two terms of the court 
by eminent counsel. 

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: 
" The court has re-examined the opinion which it gave when this cause was 
formerly before it, and has not perceived any reason for changing that 
opinion." 

The cause was again remanded accordingly, to be tried in accordance with 
law, and it seems was never again in that court. (Mclver's Lessee vs. 
Walker et al., 4th Wheaton, pages 444 to 452.) 

This was a leading case, and has been followed by all the courts generally 
of the Union, whose reports may be said to be crowded with similar adjudi- 
cations. 

In the case of Noonan vs. Lee, reported in 2d Black's Reports, decided 
by the same court, the plat was simply referred to in the deed. Under the 



—151— 

statute of the State, a plat, before it could be legally recorded, bad to be 
properly authenticated in a certain way. In this case it was not properly 
authenticated, but was put of record and referred to in the deed. Objection 
was made to its want of authentication. But the United States Court, Jus- 
tice Swayne delivering the opinion, held as follows: 

"As regards the statute, the plat was fatally defective and afforded no 
warrant to the recording ofEcer for putting it on record. Nevertheless, its 
being there was a fact, and lohellier there or elseiohere the reference to it in a 
deed for tlie jmrpose of fixinrj a houndary is sufficient. '■That is certain tuhich can 
he made certain.^ Where a map or plat is thus referred to, the effect is the same 
as if it were cojned into the deed. . . . (Davis vs. Rainesford, 17 Mass., 
211; Mclver's Lessee vs. Walker et al., 4 Wheaton, 445.)" (Opinion of Mr. 
Justice Swayne, Noonan vs. Lee, 2d Black's U. S. Reports, page .) 

Conclusion. 

It would, therefore, appear that Melish's map, referred to in the treaty 
in the words we have considered, is made thereby as much a part of the 
treaty as if it had been copied into it; and that the call for distance up 
Red River to the 100th meridian must yield to the delineation of that line 
in a certain relative position to the bends of the Arkansas and Red Rivers 
and the mountains and other natural landmarks between and around, 
which is shown in that map; if it be found that the true 100th meridian 
lies in a different locality from that in which Melish thus delineates it. 
Such being the case, it follows that the line in question is to be ascertained 
by the relative position given it on the map to these natural landmarks, 
and not by astronomical observations to find the true meridian. 

Having found before, by comparison of maps, that the line so found will 
lie to the east of the junction of the two forks, North and South, of Red 
River, we submit that this Commission, if it fixes the line according to the 
terms of the treaty, must of necessity hunt for and find it east of and 
below both the North and South Fork of Red River. 

J. T. Brackenridge, 
Chairman of Boundary Commission on the Part of Texas. 

W. H. BuRGES, Commissioner. 
G. R. Freeman, Commissioner. 



Note. — It will be observed that we are indebted to the kindness of tlie venerable nuli- 
tary chieftain and elegant scholar, Gen. X. B. Debraj', for the translation into English of 
several documents from the Spanish, for which he has the thanks of the 

Texas Commission. 



ARGUMENT OF J. T. BRACKENRIDGE 



ON THE 



CLAIM OF TEXAS TO GREER COUNTY. 



OUTLINES OF THE ARGUMENT. 

After a careful study of facts and history, I have come to the 
conclusion that the proper boundary between the Indian Terri- 
tory and Texas fixes the county of Greer in the State of Texas; 
and that the right of Texas thereto is beyond dispute. 

In discussing the question of boundary between the Indian 
Territory and Texas, as involving the right to Greer county, I 
will present historical facts and arguments on the following 
subjects: 

1. Early history of the settlement of the valley of the Missis- 
sippi, and explorations. 

2. Review of the operations of Commissioners heretofore ap- 
pointed to settle the question of the houndar^y of Texas. 

3. Argument proving that the north branch of Red River, as 
noiv recognized, is the true Red River as meant and understood 
by the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain. 

4. Argiiment showing that well knoivn and boldly defined natu- 
ral landmarks guided Count de Onis and John Quincy Adams in 
the division of the territory between the United States and Spain, 
and not the true one hundredth meridian as noiv established. 

5. History of the undisputed occupancy of Greer coimty by 
Spain from the settlement of Santa Fe up to 1828 — afterwards by 
Mexico up to 1836, then by the Republic of Texas up to 181^6, after- 
wards by the State of Texas up to this time — covering aperiod of 
one hundred and seventy years. This occupancy was recognized 
by the governments of France and the United States, acquiesciny 
in the line of this boundary — thus fixing title by prescription. 

6. The effects on the civilization of the age by the occupancy 
of the disputed territory by the white race, and by the appropri- 
ation of the moneys arising from the sale of the land to the educa- 
tion of the masses, as distinguished from the effect of occuiDcmcy 
by the Indians, ivho have not until recent years set \ip claim to the 
land. 

In discussing these points, I have been compelled to deviate 



from following the propositions exhaustively, each in turn, logi- 
cally; but the entire arguments presented embrace the facts 
and reasons on the outlines presented. 

It will be understood that I have not endeavored to exhaust 
the arguments that substantiate the justice of the claim of 
Texas to Greer county. I have occupied onlj' a portion of the 
field of facts and arguments that prove the claim of Texas to 
the territory. My Associate Commissioners have occupied with 
their papers, that are presented, other branches of the subject. 

ARGUMENT. 

The early settlements of the western portion of the Mississippi 
valley, embracing the Missouri river, the Arkansas and Red 
rivers, were made by the Spanish at Santa Fe, El Paso, San An- 
tonio and Nacogdoches. The Spanish trail from San Antonio to 
Santa Fe, via El Paso, and to Nacogdoches, in X^xas, crossed 
streams emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, and the names they 
bear attest the nationality of the explorers. 

The French settlements were at Natchitoches, on Red River, 
Natches and St. Louis, on the Mississippi. The explorations 
from these settlements throughout the region north of Red River 
gave names to the rivers in that region. Traders established 
trails from St. Louis reaching to the neighborhood of Santa Fe, 
from Natches and Natchitoches up Red River, the Ouachita, of 
Louisiana, or Arkansas, and the Arkansas river. 

A trail of trappers and traders, up Red River to the neighbor- 
hood of Santa Fe, was up the southern bank of that stream until 
near the mouth of the False Washita, where it crossed Red River, 
following up the north and east bank of that stream, upon the 
divide between the Canadian and the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches. 
Red River, beyond the Wichita mountains, had its course 
north and south where traders visiting tribes of Indians left this 
stream; and north and west, beyond this point, the trail struck 
what is now known as the Canadian and dry fork of that stream, 
which they naturally thought the same stream, or a prolongation 
of the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches. They were confirmed in this 
idea by the Indians calling all the streams in that section (on 
account of the color of the water) by this name. Therefore, 
Humboldt was led to believe that the first streams south of the 
Arkansas was Red River and tributaries of that stream. Traders 
knew nothing about Red River above and in the neighborhood 
of the settlements, where the trail left it. 

Marcy, in 1849, when laying out a road from Fort Smith for 
California emigrants, says that he located a trail or road on the 
divide between the Washita and Canadian rivers. That he 
found evidence sufficient to satisfy him that this was the route 
of the old trail. Those passing up north of the False Washita, 
which is truly the north fork of Red River, crossed it near the 
Antelope hills; and when they crossed the branches of the Cana- 
dian, beyond and above, they supposed it to be the North Fork 
of Red River; and in this they thought they were confirmed by 
the Indians. Hence all of those streams heading north of the 
thirty-fifth parallel up to the thirty-seventh north latitude, south 



— 3 — 

of the Canadian, were supposed by the French and Spaniards to 
be the headwaters of the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches; and Hum- 
boldt so platted it; and Melish adopted his platting; and the cor- 
rectness of their work was not questioned by any one at the time 
of making treaty, in 1810; and the contrary was not known until 
August, 1820, one year and six months after the terms of bound- 
ary had been agreed upon. Colonel Long was, while ex- 
ploring the headwaters of the Missouri river, ordered by the 
government of the United States to proceed, after finishing his 
work across the country, and go down the Rio Roxo of Natchi- 
toches, which he undertook to do. Taking a branch in the proper 
latitude corresponding with the maps as to the Rio Roxo of Me- 
lish, and, from all other information he could gather, he was 
satisfied that he was on the Rio Roxo of Louisiana; but, after 
descending it about two hundred miles he tells us, he met 
Indians, who told him that he was descending Red River. After 
proceeding to the mouth he found that he had descended a tribu- 
tary of the Arkansas, and it was too late in the season to retrace 
his steps and descend Red River. But suppose he had returned? 
He certainly would have taken the next stream to the south of 
the Canadian, which would have been the Washita; or, if he had 
been too far to the west for that stream, he would have taken 
what General Marcy styles the North Fork of Red River; and, 
whichever he took — if the Washita, or North Fork — it would 
have settled this question forever, for he would have given the 
name of Red River to the one he descended to Natchitoches. 

In the duties assigned us, we are confined to establishing and 
marking the one hundredth meridian of west longitude of the 
treaty, between the territory of the United States and the State 
of Texas from Red River north. If we find the initial point on 
Red River, east of the mouth of Prairie Dog Town river, our work 
will be confined to the meridian, but if we find that the one hun- 
dredth meridian is west of the confluence of the North and 
South Forks, then our work becomes complex, and we will first 
have to ascertain which is the river of the treaty. The treaty 
does not give us any data or description, and refers us to Melish's 
map for information, stating it is the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches 
(or a river upon the bank of which is situated the old French 
town of Natchitoches in Louisiana). This river has been estab- 
lished and identified, and recognized and adopted by both, in 
all its course and meanderings, as the true boundary between 
the United States and the State of Texas up to the so-called 
North and South Fork. We should adopt the one that conforms 
nearest to the river of the treaty. Now we will asssume, that we 
are on Red River, at the mouth of Cache creek, for the first time, 
to determine the Red River of the treaty. We stop at the north 
fork of this river, because, according to the map of the treaty, 
this is the first river south of the Wichita mountains, delineated 
upon the map. We now determine to send out exploring par- 
ties, one down the stream to see if upon its banks we can find 
the French town Natchitoches ; the other we send up the river 
to determine its source. In that expedition is Gen. Marcy, Col. 
Erath, Capt. Ross, Gen. Ross, Gen. Bee, Col. Ford, Col. Young, 
Capt. Pitts, Capt. Lambert, with old Indians and half-breeds 



who had been born on the waters of Red River west of the 
Wichita mountains; who were familiar with all the country 
west as hunters and as traders; who in trading had acquired the 
language of several savage tribes of Indians, and also the lan- 
guage of several civilized nations, English, Spanish and French. 
8ome of the Indians and half-breeds were chiefs of differ- 
ent tribes. Others were distinguished braves. After waiting 
three months our explorers returned. Those that went down the 
river gave us a plot of the river, and said they found Natchito- 
ches upon the bank of this river, thus establishing its identity 
with Melish's Rio Roxo. 

Gen. Marcy reports that his Indian guides took him up what 
we will call the North Fork of Red River; that they told him it 
was Red River, that he found on its east, or north bank, evi- 
dences of travel by civilized men, — to- wit : old ruts of wagons or 
carts; that he found that this stream did not extend as far to the 
north and west as plotted by Melish; but to make sure that he 
was on the longest branch he took his course north, and found 
at a distance of twenty-five miles the Canadian, a tributary of 
the Arkansas ; and that this fork of Red River was the first 
stream south of the Arkansas. 

He then took his course from the head of the North Fork, south — 
found several streams which flowed into the North Fork, and, 
at last, struck a stream that the Indians called "Kechequihono," 
which they examined from its source to its mouth. He found that 
this stream headed farther to the west than the North Fork; but 
was over a degree farther to the south; that, upon this stream, he 
found no evidence of civilization, or of its ever having been visited 
by man. And that it was the main tributary, or branch, of Red 
River;jbut that it was not known until 1852, and had never been 
plattea or laid down on any map prior to that date. The Rosses, 
Young, Ford, Pitts — all report that, in going up, they gave in- 
structions to the Indians to take them up the Rio Roxo of Natchi- 
toches, and that they passed the mouth of Pease river, also the 
Kechequihono, which the old Indians said was not the Red 
River, but was the Kechequihono. That on the North Fork, above 
the mouth of the Kechequihono, on the the northeast bank, 
they pointed out an old Indian village, where some of them 
were born. Under this statement of facts I hold that we shall 
be compelled to decide:' First, from latitude and position to Ar- 
kansas, it comes nearer conforming to the Rio Roxo, as platted 
on Melish's map than the South Fork does, which has only one 
advantage in conformity, that of reaching farther west. Sec- 
ond, the North Fork was a known stream prior the compil- 
ing of the map, and the other, or South Fork, was an unknown 
stream, and was not plotted upon any map for years after the 
ratification of the treaty. Third, that both were known by 
the Indians prior t o date of treaty. That the North Fork was 
known only by one name, that of Red River ; that the South 
Fork had, with them, but one name, Prairie Dog Town River. 
Fourth, that from the earliest settlement by Spain the United 
States, up to this date, has never, authoritatively, occupied or 
treated any portion of the territory south and west of the North 
Fork of Red River as being a portion of the territory of the 



— 5 — 

United States. Brown and Long, in 1857, under a contract they 
had to sectionize the Indian Territory, sectionized the connty of 
Greer, andestabliseda momunenton the Kechequihono, w"st of 
its moutli, which was'without authority, and has never been recog- 
nized by the State of Texas or by the United States. This region 
has been held and occupied by Spain for over one hundred years, 
by Mexico eight years, by the Republic of Texas nine years, and 
the State of Texas thirty years — one hundred and seventy years 
of peaceful possession, undisputed, unquestioned, until 1856, 
which was based on a discovery by Gen. Marcy, which he says 
is not good in fact or reason. He certainly ought to be allowed 
his own statement to interpret the meaning of the language he 
used in the description of his explorations. He says under oath: 
*' I have been unable to resist the force of my own convictions 
that the branch of Red River called the North Fork of that 
stream is what is designated upon Melish's map as Rio Roxo." 
This ought to forever silence those who quote from him to prove 
that the Prairie Dog Town Fork was the Rio Roxo of the treaty 
of 1819. 

Ail of the boundary lines have been fixed and agreed upon. 
Whether in accordance with the letter and spirit of the treaty 
is not for us to inquire ; and the only portion is the one hundredth 
meridian on Melish's map, left for us now to fix or determine 
what was intended by the treaty. Was it the one hundreth meri- 
dian west of Greenwich, and twenty-third west of Washington, 
as marked upon the ground by Gen. Marcy in 1852, De Cordova 
in 1856, Brown and Long in 1857 as marked upon the maps of 
Desturnel, Humboldt, Colton or Emery, upon any other map? It 
certainly was none of these lines, unless they conform to, and 
are the same, as marked upon Melish's map referred to in the 
treaty, for the true line is unquestionably the one marked upon 
Melish's map, designated as the one hundredth meridian of lon- 
gitude; because, the treaty says, the whole being as laid down 
in Melish's map — the whole with reference to acreage, rivers, 
mountains, to the east and west of said line, platted on Melish's 
map, designated as the one hundredth meridian. 

This treaty was formulated by John Quincy Adams, of the 
United States, and Don Louis de Onis, of Spain, appointed by 
their respective governments to settle and to define by treaty 
the limit of the United States to the west and south, adjoining 
the territory of Spain, and to define the limit of the possessions 
of the crown of Spain to the east and north, adjoining the terri- 
tories of the United States. A vast region of this territory was 
claimed by both; Spain basing her claim by right of discovery, con- 
• quest and treaty, and the United States by purchase from France. 

These distinguished diplomats were unable to divide the dis- 
puted territory by actual survey and observation upon the 
ground. They therefore agreed to take Melish's map, improved 
to January, 1818, as the true plat of the country; and each with 
a map of Melish spread out before him, traced his idea of what 
would be a just and equitable division, according to the plat or 
map before him. They traced from the Gulf up the Sabine 
to the thirty-second degree of latitude, then north to the Rio 



— 6 — 

Roxo, then westward along the Rio Roxo to a point east within 
about sixty-five geographical miles of the forks of Red River, then, 
crossing Red River, running due north, crossing the Wichita 
mountains about sixty miles north of the Rio Roxo, at their 
most eastern extremity, then on to the. Arkansas river. Here 
was a vast section of country, extending from the mouth of the 
Mississippi up to the mouth of the Missouri river and up that 
stream to its source, t nd then west to the Pacific ocean, claimed 
by Spain; and the United States, on her part, by virtue of pur- 
chase from France, west of the Mississippi to the Rio Grande, 
claiming a portion of the same territory. They agreed not 
to arbitrate, but to divide the disputed territory, its mountains, 
plains and vales, seas, lakes and rivers, as portrayed, delineated 
and enumerated and platted upon Melish's map. If this is 
not so I am unable to understand the language of the treaty. 
It says: "The whole being as laid down on Alelish's map." Was 
it intended to divide the country at this point by the true one 
hundredth meridian from Greenwich and twenty-third from 
Washington? If so, the true meridian must be found, and the 
expression, or portion of the treaty which says, "the whole 
being as laid down on Melish's map," is irrelevant, meaningless 
and superfluous, and has no more to do with the treaty 
than the fly specks or ink blots that may be found upon th© 
original parchment. I assume that the marking of meridians 
upon the map by Melish were correct, but that the country and 
rivers had been stretched to the west, and would, in correct 
platting, be brought back to the east to conform to the meridians. 
Here it appears that the country had been stretched one hundred 
and twenty-five miles to the west, and by taking the true merid- 
ian, Spain lost one hundred and twenty-five miles of territor}' in 
width, and from Red River to the Arkansas in length; and the 
boundary line would be established on the ground one hundred 
and twenty-five miles west of where John Quincy Adams said it 
would be, and where Spain agreed that it should cross the Rio 
Roxo. But, on the contrary, the treaty was intended as an 
equitable division of territory, not with regard to distance from 
Washington or London, which they did not think of, but with 
regard to the extent of territory between the Mississippi river 
and the Rio Grande, embracing acres, mountains and rivers on 
the east and on the west of said line; and they found a point on 
Melish's map on Red River where they agreed to cross; and this 
point Melish had marked or designated as the one hundredth 
meridian, and it would have been adopted had it been called the 
ninety-eighth or one hundred and second by Melish. The govern- 
ment of the United States holds that it must be the true twenty- 
third meridian from Washington. Texas holds that it was a 
point located two and two-thirds degrees west of the mouth of 
the False Washita and three and one-tenth degrees west of the 
mouth of Blue Water river, and was three degrees west of the 
mouth of the Canadian river, being about sixty five 
miles east of the mouth of the Keche-aque-ho-no- 
(which the secretary of the interior, Mr. Teller, says 
was the main Red River, as platted by Melish — 
notwithstanding the traditions of the Indians and history given 



us by eminent explorers and subsequently established facts to the 
contrary). If this was intended an equitable division, and we 
find the streams and terj-itories had been stretched one hundred 
and twenty-five miles to the west, then in equity the territory 
between the true meridian and the meridian of Melish should be 
divided between Texas and tiie United States. That is, if the 
one hundredth meridian of Melish on the ground was the ninety- 
eighth true meridian, then equity would say as to division of 
territory the ninety-ninth meridian would couform to the inten- 
tion and understanding of the governments at that time. 

This treaty was a quit-claim by Spain to the United States of 
all interest in the territory to the east of the one hundredth me- 
ridian from the Rio Roxo to the Arkansas, and was a convey- 
ance by the United States of all her interest to Spain west of said 
line designated as the one hundredth meridian of longitude. 
To the governments this appeared, from Melish's map, to be 
an equitable division of territory, and was adopted as such by 
them. If this line had not been intended to be the true bound- 
ary, reference would not have been made to Melish's map. 
Deeds of land frequently refer to older deeds of the same prop- 
erty for better description; and where reference is made to an- 
other prior deed for description, the deed referred to will cure 
any defect in description; or when a deed refers to a plot, the 
plot will cure any defect in description. And if from deed the 
property cannot be located, and the quantity conveyed esti- 
mated, reference should be had to the plot referred to, to locate 
the land and show the quantity conveyed. 

Melish's map, referred to, and made part of the treaty, locates 
the one hundredth meridian on the Rio Roxo about sixty-five 
miles east of all the forks of the Rio Roxo, and three degrees 
due west of the mouth of the Canadian, and two and two-thirds 
degrees west of the mouth of the False Wachita, and all the 
forks of the Rio Roxo and the river west of that point with its 
tributaries, forks and branches belong to Spain; and all of the 
range known as the Wichita mountains, except the extreme east- 
ern portion of that range distant north about fifty miles, where 
the hundredth meridian of Melish crosses it, were conveyed by 
this treaty to Spain. 

Now these mountains must have been noted landmarks from 
their great elevation, enabling them to be seen at a great 
distance by explorers, traders and trappers, and by the excursion 
of Spanish troops who were frequently sent into the region of 
the Nork Fork of Red River and upon the waters of the False 
Washita, to treat with the Indians. But, assume that this range 
had been a depression instead of an elevation, and its deeps cov- 
ered with water, and it had been called Lake Wichita — that the 
Rio Roxo of the boundary skirted near its western and southern 
banks, and the one hundredth meridian of the treaty, found 
upon Melish's map, was found to pass through the eastern portion 
of the lake, leaving to the west the great body of the lake, would 
it not have established the line, entitled Spain to the use of the 
waters, and the possession of its banks? The extent and limits 
of the mountains are not easily defined, as they are approached 
by elevations and steeps, and slope away in ranges of hills and 



— 8 — 

peaks more or less elevated. The meridian of the treaty gjave 
to Spain, as shown upon the map referred to in the treaty, most 
of the range called the Wichita mountains. The true one hun- 
dredth meridian of Emery gives the entire range to the United 
States, and, if adopted and substituted for Melish's meridian, 
would place the line sixtj'^ miles west of the range and about one 
hundred and twentj-five miles west of the meridian of the 
treaty as platted by Melish. 

As before said, the platting of longitude upon the map maybe 
correct, taking Washington as zero. The line delineated was 
the correct distance for the twenty-third meridian of longitude 
at that latitude, and the error was in platting the land and 
rivers; and it may be contended that the error should be cor- 
rected where it is found to exist. As I understand the treaty, it 
was an amicable division of disputed territory, or, say common 
territory, lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande, by 
known natural marks on the ground, such as rivers, etc., the 
knoiuledge of tvhich ynust he actual, prior to, and at the time of 
the treaty. Nothing subsequent thereto can be substituted. 
The knowledge is established by the deed, or treaty itself, and 
the language of the treaty "following westward the Rio 
Roxo of Natchitoches to the one hundreth meridian, etc, the 
whole being as laid down in Melish's map." 

These natural landmarks upon the ground, and platted upon 
Melish's map, constitute the essence of the treaty. What goes 
before and comes after constitutes the hull and shell; the rivers 
called for and the lines called for, as platted upon Melish's map, 
constitute the kernel. To change this, or to undertake to depart 
from it, destroys the kernel, and leaves in the treaty nothing 
but worthless parchment — waste paper. By all known rules 
of law, which is founded upon reason, known landmarks called 
for in deeds or conveyances govern, without regard to latitude, 
longitude or distance. The only other lines adopted in 
this treaty were the lines drawn across Melish's map, and they 
took one of these lines with reference to the territory east and 
west, marked upon the map as the one hundredth meridian. 
The landmarks were traced upon the face of the earth by the 
finger of God; the meridians on the map by the finger of Melish; 
the one upon the country immutable, unchangable, fixed by God; 
the other upon the map, as fixed and certain, established by Melish. 
This line, the one hundredth meridian, was taken, we say, with 
reference to extent of territory, rivers, mountains, plains and 
valleys, to the east and to the west, and not with regard to actual 
distance from London or Greenwich. 

The knowledge that DeOnis had of the topography of 
the country was not confined to accounts of explora- 
tions, as given in history. His sources of information were 
innumerable, the chief of which were Spanish officers stationed 
at Santa Fe, who had made frequent excursions into the interior 
of that region bordering upon the Arkansas and Canadian rivers, 
and upon the north bank of the Rio Roxo, for the purpose of 
intercepting and turning back American and French explorers, 
and for the purpose of treating with the various tribes of Indians 
located in that region (every tribe in that region being furnished 



with the flag of Spain, which they preserved as evidence of their 
submission and allegiance to the crown of Spain); and by civilized 
Indians employed as guides and interpreters to the Spanish troops 
and traders, all of which is evidenced by language used in some 
of DeOnis's letters to Adams during the negotiation of the 
treaty. And Adams had knowledge — not as extensive and as 
accurate as the knowledge of DeOnis, but sufficient to satisfy 
him that this line would be a just division of territory east and 
west. 

Suppose two parties, say A. and B., own jointly one hundred 
thousand acres of land, and a third party, say Melish, furnishes 
them with a plot of the land showing the hills, plains, valleys, 
streams and springs; and across this plot, or map, he undertakes 
to mark the parallels and meridians; and what he marks and 
calls the one hundredth meridian west from Greenwich and 
twenty-third from Washington. This looks like an equi- 
table division of the one hundred thousand acres, both as to 
quantity of land, springs and valleys, to the east and to the west, 
and they agree to divide, making this line, the one hundredth 
meridian, the line of division, A. taking all on the east of said one 
hundredth meridian and B. taking all on the west, and the deed, 
or instrument of division, says "the true boundary line between 
A. and B. shall be the one hundredth meridian of longitude west 
from Greenwich and twenty-third west from Washington, the 
whole being as laid down on Melish's map, or plot, made Jan- 
uary, 1818, and of record in, etc." 

But years afterwards surveyors employed find the true one 
hundredth meridian is west of the meridian of Melish so as to 
leave B. west of the true meridian, instead of fifty thousand 
acres, only a fraction of an acre. Here, the courts of the 
land would intervene at the request of B. and by reference to the 
language of the treaty of division would take the line upon the 
plot, or map, styled the one hundredth meridian referred to, 
and establish the title to the fifty thousand acres of the one hun- 
dred thousand in B. according to the map, or plot, of Melish — 
discarding and not regarding the true meridian. 

|3ut on the contrary, if A. owned one hundred thousand acres 
of land, and sold to B. by deed fifty thousand acres on the west 
side of a stream, known as the Rio Roxo, and in the deed defined 
the corners by natural land marks, taking the known point 
where the river left the one hundred thousand acres of land, 
and adopted the western bank of that stream as the eastern 
boundary up to the point where it entered the one hundred 
thousand acres of land, and in after years by survey it was 
found that this land contained several thousand acres less than 
was supposed, the courts would not interfere, or suffer B. to 
cross the stream, the Rio Roxo, and take a quantity of land suf- 
ficient to make up his fifty thousand acres. The reason is that 
natural objects upon the ground given as boundary would be 
supposed to have been as well known to B. as to A. and the rule 
is that natural objects called for in the deed, or conveyances, 
must govern, without regard to distance or extent of territory. 

Now we find that we have two meridians of longitude, named 
the one hundredth meridian west from London, and twenty- 



— 10 — 

third west from Washington. We will call one the one hun- 
dredth meridian of longitude of Melish, as platted upon his map 
improved up to January, 1818, The other we will call the one 
hundredth meridian of Emory. Which shall we take ? Which 
must we take ? The United States says the meridian of Emory, 
or the true meridian, wherever it may be found by observation 
upon the ground, one hundred degrees west from Greenwich and 
twenty-three degrees west from Washington. We say that we 
must take the meridian of the treaty. What does the treaty say?' 
The treaty says, "the one hundredth meridian as found on 
Melish's map, improved to January, 1818." Adams says, " the one 
hundredth meridian west of Greenwich and twenty-third west 
from Washington as laid down in Melish's map." De Onis says, 
the same. The treaty by agreement between John Quincy 
Adams on the one part, and Count Louis De Onis on the other,, 
ratified and adopted by their respective governments, says " the 
whole being as laid down in Melish's map, streams, forks, moun- 
tains, seas, rivers, plains, meridians and parallels," and this can; 
not be varied except by treaty, ratified by the respective gov- 
ernments owning the soil on each side of the said line or lines; 
and I am, therefore, satisfied that the true meridian of the 
treaty is the one hundredth meridian of Melish's map improved 
to January, 1818, and should be established on the ground with 
reference to, and so as to conform to rivers, mountains and ter- 
ritor}^ as shown upon the face of the map, and not as to actual 
distance from London or Washington. 

Policies enter into negotiations, constitute the outworks of 
treaties, and supplement the laws of nations. The question be- 
fore us involves grave ideas of public policies, affecting the in- 
terests of every individual citizen in the United States. 

First, shall the area of civilization be diminished to the extent 
of Greer county? Shall it be taken from the productive citizen 
and turned over to the non-productive savage? Shall it become 
the home, in the near future, of a million of happy, prosperous 
citizens, giving strength and wealth to the Union, and thereby 
lightening the burden of taxation? or, shall it become the hunt- 
ing ground of the Indian, guarded upon the territory by a stand- 
ing army, at heavy expense, to keep them upon their reserva- 
tion? 

There has never been a question or a doubt as to the justice 
of the claim of Texas to this territory. She has exercised juris- 
diction and treated it in all respects the same as she has treated 
any other portion of her territory, whether bordering upon the 
Rio Grande, the Gulf or the Sabine. She has dedicated this, 
territory, one-half to further the civilization of the age, to wit, 
for public free schools; the other half for matters of justice 
and humanity, to wit, the payment of the public debt, whether 
founded in law, equity, gratitude or humanity. 

Three millions of dollars (estimated value of one-half of these 
lands), for the education of all the children of the State, black 
and white, gives an interest to every parent in every State in 
the Union, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who, by emigrating 
to this State, can avail themselves of its benefits. This fund is. 
pure in its conception. This fund is the product of 



— li- 
the patriotism, the matchless valor and heroism of the 
patriots of San Jacinto, the fathers of the Republic. 
The other half, as I said, dedicated to the pay- 
ment of the public debt. The first debt that she has undertaken 
to pay is one of gratitude to the veterans of the Republic of 
Texas. In the payment of this debt we have not been hasty, 
taking into consideration their great want and extreme old age. 
At the eleventh hour the State has issued, to each of the surviv- 
ing veterans, certificates for twelve hundred and eighty acres of 
land, and this was done after the public domain had been 
exhausted. They have therefore been allowed to file their cer- 
tificates in this disputed territory of Greer county; their titles to 
these lands are as precarious and uncertain as the tenure of their 
lives. With bent forms, eyes dimmed with age, and with trem- 
bling limbs, they have sought approach to the door of this 
commission, asking for one word of hope that their titles were 
secure. 

The government of the United States, be it to her credit said, 
has never forgotten the services rendered her by her patriot sol- 
diers. The pension list, the soldiers' homes, the annual decora- 
tion of graves, attest in the nation a grateful remembrance. The 
United States can well afford, and should, enroll the names of 
the heroes of Goliad, the Alamo, and San Jacinto upon her list 
of pensioned heroes, thus giving to their names their due place 
in the temple of honor. Their heroism gave to the Republic 
liberty, and this State to the Union, resulting in the acquisition 
of a vast region of country, reaching from the Gulf to the Pacific 
Ocean, grander in extent of territory than the original thirteen 
colonies. In • the person of these heroes, every State in the 
Union was represented. 

The results have inured to the whole people, and their acts and 
achievements constitute a portion of the history of our country, 
begun by our sires at Concord and Lexington, finished by their 
sons at San Antonio and San Jacinto. 

''For Freedom's battle, once begun, 
Bequeath'd by bleeding sire to son 
Though baiHed oft, is ever won." 

I have now stated what I belive to be the facts: 
First: That all that line of boundary formulated and adopted 
as a treaty between the governm^ent of the United States and '^ 
the government of Spain, signed on the 22d day of February,, 
1819, by the accredited representatives of the government of the 
United States and the government of Spain, fully authorized to 
do so by their respective governments, has been finally settled 
by commissioners on the part of the United States and the State 
of Texas from that point in the sea at the mouth of the Sabine 
river, up the west bank of that stream to where the thirty-second 
parallel crosses it, due north to the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or 
Red River; thence following westward that stream to the mouth 
of the Kecheaquihono. No portion of this is in question, 
whether settled in accordance with the terms of the treaty 
or the spirit thereof. It is now valid and cannot be disturbed; 



— 12 — 

and this commission is not authorized to question the equity or | 
A^alidity of the same. 

Second : That from the platting of Red River of the treaty 
upon Melish's map, we are of the opinion, and believe, that the 
Red River of the treaty, west of the mouth of the Kecheaqui- 
hono, is what is styled as the North Fork of that river, from the 
fact that it is the first stream extending to the north and west, 
south of the Canadian, receiving the waters of the divide be- 
tween those streams, and its sources approaching nearer the 
sources of the Red River, as platted on Melish's map of the 
treaty; ihat Colonel Long was of this opinion when he quoted 
the statement of one of his guides; that the excursions of Colonel 
Young. Erath, three Rosses, Colonel Ford, Captain Pitts, General 
Bee, and Lambert, satisfied each and every one of them accord- 
ing to their testimony that the North Fork, so called by Marcy, 
was the true Rio Roxo of the treaty, and Marcy himself, under 
oath, states that he is satisfied that the Rio Roxo of Louisiana, 
as platted upon Melish's map, must have been what he called the 
North Fork; and that Wakeland, in the employ, as a surveyor, 
of Jacob De Cordova, states that he is satisfied that the North 
Fork is the true boundary line between the Territories of the 
United States, but does not give his reasons; but I suppose his 
reasons were founded upon actual observation, and tradition of 
Indians in his employ living upon the upper Red River, and we 
deny the statement made by the Commission, on the part of the 
United States, that the South Fork, so styled by Marcey, was the 
river plotted upon Melish's map, for the reason that it was never 
known by travelers, traders, trappers, explorers — Spanish, 
French o/ American — as Red River, and had never been known 
by the Indians, savage and civilized, living in that region upon 
the North Fork of Red River by any other name except that of 
the Kecheaquihono, and if known to civilized men, it was, to a 
few Spanish explorers, as White River, which knowledge is of 
very recent discovery and publication, and that it has never 
been platted upon any map of the United States prior to the ex- 
ploration of Marcy, in 1852; that the North Fork, on the con- 
trary, prior to 1852, was known only as Red River, has never 
borne any other name, and the Commissioners on the part of 
the United States have failed to tell us what the North Fork was 
called prior to 1852. It must have had some name prior to that 
date if it was not the Rio Roxo of the treaty. 

Third : We deny that the one hundredth meridian, or the line 
on Melish's map adopted as the line of the treaty, as delineated 
on Melish's map, will be found west of the mouth of the Keche- 
aquihono. Admitting the impossibility to accurately 
locate this line, as marked upon Melish' -map, with 
reference to mountains, streams, bends of rivers, etc., 
so as to conform upon the ground with the division 
of territory as platted upon the map, yet we believe it should be 
done approximately, and by mutual concession if the equities of 
the treaty are to be carried out. If they had been carried out, 
•and marked upon the ground the year of the ratification of this 
treaty, I am satisfied that the one hundredth meridian would 
have been located over a degree to the east of the forks of Red 



— 13 — 

River, and all of that territory west of that line, now the Indian 
Territory, would have been the territory of his Catholic Majestv- 
and to-day the home of thousands of civilized, enlightened citi- 
zens from every State in the Union, established, encouraged and 
protected under the aegis of the United States, amenable to the 
laws of Texas, and we would not have been called upon to mark 
the line of boundary in a section upon a stream (Prairie Dog 
Town river) unknown to civilized man at that time, and that 
was not discovered to exist during the generation of those that 
made the treaty. 

A policy divesting the State of Texas of this territory would 
not be in the interest of civilization, but would tend to perpetu- 
ate the Indian race in all that is degrading, demoralizing, brutish 
and beastly, burdening civilization to do it — alienating a sacred 
soil, dedicated by the fathers of civilization as the home of God- 
fearing, law-abiding, liberty-loving citizens. But if diverted to 
the use of a savage, degraded race, they will be maintained in 
idleness, fed and clothed by the government, taxing the sweat 
of honest industry for that purpose. 

The nineteenth century demands a different policy — a manag*^- 
ment making them self-reliant, perhaps industrious, frugal and 
thrifty. There should be given to each in severalty their propor- 
tion of the soil, and they should be forced to live by the sweat 
of their brows, and not by that of others. 

Substitute for the tomahawk and scalping-knife the hoe and 
plow; clothe them with all the habiliaments of civilization. 
They may become useful members of society; and the Indian 
Territory would become the home of an enlightened people. 

General Miles, commanding the Department of Missouri, in 
his report, for 1885, says: 

"The Indian Territory is now a block in the pathway of civi- 
lization. It is preserved to perpetuate a mongrel race, far re- 
moved from the influence of civilized people; a refuge for the 
outlaws and indolent whites, blacks and Mexicans. The vices 
introduced by these classes are rapidly destroying the Indians by 
disease. Without courts of justice or public institutions, with- 
out roads, bridges or railways — it is simply a dark blot in the 
center of the map of the United States. It costs the govern- 
ment hundreds of thousands of dollars to peacefully maintain 
from sixty to eighty thouand Indiaps there, when the territory is 
capable of supporting many millions of enlightened people." 



In the foregoing Argument, it will be noted that the following 
Proposition has been argued at some length: 

Well knoivn and boldly defined landmm^ks, mountains, bends of 
rivers, and forks of streams, as laid doivn on Mellish's map, 
guided Count de Onis and John Quincy Adams in the div>ision of 
territory between Spain and the United States; and the line of 
division betiveen the two countries ivas intended to be located at 
the point ivhere a meridian crosses the landmarks as delineated on 
the map. As laid down on the map, the one hundredth meridian 
crossed these landmarks. If it was an error in Melish in placing 
the one hundredth meridian at this point, the correction to be 
made, in the question of boundary, is to folloiv the meridian that 
conforms to the landmarks on the map, and on the ground, and 
to take this meridian as the boundary, and not the one hundredth 
meridian. In other words, the one hundredth true meridian tvas 
not the controlling call in the description of boundary. 

In presenting this argument, it is considered that it is 
a new view of the question, neither contemplated in the Act 
of the Legislature of Texas, nor in the Act of Congress, 
by which the Boundary Commissioners were appointed. It is 
well understood that both these acts may be strictly construed 
as limiting the work of the Commission to marking the true one 
hundredth meridian, and then to a determination 
as to which branch of Red River was referred to in the 
treaty of 1819 — the north or the south branch. 

The arguments have, of course, been addressed to this latter 
question, as being the matter under the immediate jurisdiction 
of the Commissioners. But, it was not deemed improper, in the 
settlement of the question of boundary, to present the view of 
the case as stated in the above proposition. The question at 
issue is as to the ownership of Greer county; and while it may 
be established by limiting the argument and investigation as to 
which is the true Red River of the treaty of 1819, it is thought 
that as a collateral argument to settle the question of ownership, 
this second proposition, with a new view of the case, should be 
presented. In the final determination of the question of owner- 
ship, all the facts and circumstances should be taken into con- 
sideration, to explain the meaning of the words of the treaty, 
and the intention of Count de Onis and Mr. Adams. It is 
thought that the main work sought to be accomplished by the 
Act of Congress, and the Legislature of Texas, was to settle the 
question of title to Greer county. If the settlement of the 
question equitably can be aided by arguments and facts not con- 
templated in the laws creating the Commission, it is thought 



— 15 — 

;proper to make a presentation of the facts and arguments that 
have occurred to the Commissioners" in pursuing their investiga- 
tions, outside of tlie strict limit of their work, under the law. 

This explanation is made in order that it may be understood 
that the strict line of work laid out for the Commission by law 
was fully understood, and has been closely followed. But, it 
was thought the paramount work was to determine the question 
of ownership of Greer county; and hence this collateral argu- 
ment was prepared, to be considered as strengthening the claim 
of Texas from a new standpoint. 



REPORT AND ARGUMENT 



ON THE PART OF 



THE TEXAS COMMISSION 

UPON THE QUESTION OF 

r 

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
AND TEXAS. 



Office of Joint Commission on Boundary, 
Austin, Texas, June 23, 1886. 

Col. S. M. Mansfield, Chairman of Commission on the part of 
the United States : 

Sir — The pleadings presenting the issues between the two 
governments having been adopted and made part of the record, 
all the evidence now attainable having been adduced under the 
issues formulated, and the report and argument thereon sub- 
mitted by you and fully considered, the Texas commission now 
respectfully submits a report, with argument and such conclu- 
sions therefrom as seem to have been established on the whole 
case. 

We do not deem it profitable to enter upon a special denial 
and answer of each position assumed and argued by the com- 
mission on the part of the United States. It is presumed they 
have carefully examined the points claimed, and would not 
change the views now declared unless convinced by such an 
array of evidence and cogency of reasoning as could not 
properly be indulged by us in such answer, without manifest 
neglect of our affirmaiive issues. Therefore the Texas commis- 
sion adopts a different method, and proposes to answer each and 
ever}' position, argument and conclusion upon which a difference 
is expressed, by the argument and conclusions hereinafter pre- 
sented on the affirmative issues of Texas involved. 



— 2 



The United States is estopped by her oivn acts, under the treaties 
and conventions hereinafter stated, from noiv asserting a claim 
of fHght to the territory of Greer county, in dispute. 

This question arises out of the public acts touching the 
boundary and the evidence in the record, showing a continuous 
recognition of the true boundary line and the exercise of juris- 
diction respectively by each government on each side of said 
line, without interruption, for a period of more than sixty years. 
During said period vested rights of immense value have become 
an object of public concern and rightful protection. These 
could not be neglected or disregarded between two such gov- 
ernments as made the treaty of 1819, although it should lead to 
open hostilities; much less can they be lost sight of by the two 
governments now contending for the strip of land known as 
Greer county. 

We submit that a candid consideration of this question under 
all the evidence and laws pertinent to the same will hardly fail 
to force the conviction upon the joint commission that the 
United States has been mislead into an error, and that her claim 
is not founded upon right, but is a pretension started by inter- 
ested persons in 1857 to 1859. 

Under a fair construction of the treaty of February 22, 1819, 
between the United States and Spain, the treaty of limits be- 
tween the United States and the Republic of Mexico, of Janu- 
ary 12, 1828, and the convention on boundary between the United 
States and the Republic of Texas, concluded April 25, 1838, rati- 
fied and proclaimed October 12 and 13. 1838, and the act of ad- 
mission of Texas into the Union of the United States, December 
29, 1845, the jurisdiction authorized and exercised by Spain, the 
Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the State of 
Texas over all that territory from that point on Red River where 
the boundary line begins, thence westward along the south bank 
thereof to the 100th degree of west longitude, which territory 
embraces Greer county, was peaceful, and admitted to be lawful 
by the United States; and the United States is, by said treaties, 
the comity of nations and her own acts, estopped from now as- 
serting claim to the same. 

Attention is directed to the treaties and public acts bearing on 
this subject, only so much quoted as may be pertinent. 
Extracts from treaiy of 22d of February, 1819 
"Art. 3. The boundary line between the two countries west 
of the Mississippi shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the 
mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea; continuing north along 
the western bank of that river to the thirty-second degree of 
latitude; thence by a line due north to the degree of latitude 
where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River; 
then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the de- 
gree of longitude one hundred west from London and twenty- 
three from Washington; then crossing the said Red River and 
running thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas. 



— 3 — 

"Art. 4 To fix this line with more precision, and to place the 
landmarks which shall designate exactly the limits of both 
nations, each of the contracting parties shall appoint a commis- 
sioner and surveyor, who shall meet before the termination of 
one year from the date of the ratification of the treaty, at Natch- 
itoches," on Red River, and proceed to run and mark the said line 
from the mouth of the Sabine to the Red River, and from the 
Red River to the river Arkansas." 

Extract from treaty of limits between the United States of Amer- 
ica and the Untied Mexican States, concluded January 12. 

1828. 

"Article 1. The dividing limits of the respective bordering 
territories of the United States of Ameri(*a and of the United 
Mexican States being the same as were agreed and fixed upon 
by the above mentioned treaty of Washington [between Spain 
and the United States of America], concluded and signed on the 
twenty-second day of February, in the year one thousand eight 
hundred and nineteen, the two high contracting parties will pro- 
ceed forthwith to carry into full effect the third and fourth arti- 
cles of said treaty." 

[Senate Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Congress, 3rd session.] 

Convention between the United States of America and the Re- 
public of Texas for marking the boundary between them, con- 
cluded April 25, 1838, ratification exchanged October, 12, 1838, 
proclaimed October 13, 1838. 

"Whereas, The treaty of limits made and concluded on the 12th 
day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and twenty eight, "between the United States of America 
on the one part "and the United Mexican States on the other, is 
binding upon the Republic of Texas, the same having been en- 
tered into at a time when Texas formed a part of the said United 
Mexican States. 

'' And whereas. It is deemed proper and expedient, in order to 
prevent future disputes and collisions between the United States 
and Texas in regard to the boundary between the two countries 
as designated by said treaty, that a portion of the same should 
be run and marked without unnecessary delay, the President 
of the United States has appointed John Forsyth their plenipo- 
tentiary and the President of the Republic of Texas has ap- 
pointed Memucan Hunt its plenipotentiary, and the said pleni- 
potentiares, having exchanged their full powers, have agreed 
upon and concluded the following articles : 

" Article 1. Each of the contracting parties shall appoint a 
commissioner and surveyor, who shall meet before the termina- 
tion of twelve months from the exchange of the ratifications of 
this convention, at New Orleans, and proceed to run and mark 
that portion of the said boundary which extends from the mouth 
of the Sabine, where that river enters the Gulf of Mexico, to the 
Red River. 

" Article 2. And it is agreed that until this line shall be 



marked out as is provided for in the foregoing article, each of 
the contracting parties shall continue to exercise jurisdiction in 
all the territory over which its jurisdiction has hitherto been 
exercised ; and that the 7'etnaining portion of the said boundary 
line shall be run and marked at siidi time hereafter as may suit 
the convenience of botli the contracting parties, until tvhi'ch time 
each of the said parties shall exercise iDithout interference of the 
other, ivithin the territory of ivhich the boundary shall not have 
been so marked and run, jurisdiction to the same extent to which 
it has been heretofore usually exercised.''^ 

In the act of congress, March 1, 1845, and confirmed in resolu- 
tion of annexation of Texas, December 29, 1845, it said : Texas 
"shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying 
within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and 
liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said 
lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed 
of as said state may direct." 

These are the general treaty and other acts concerning said ter- 
ritor3\ It is admitted that the State of Texas holds and 
possesses the rights and titles to said territory that any of her 
predecessors could have lawfully claimed under said acts of 
treaty and recognition. 

It will be observed that under the treaty of the twenty-second 
of February, 1819, that the language is "thence by a line due 
north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of 
Natchitoches, or Red River ; then following the course of the 
Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude one hundred west 
from London and twonty-three from Washington; then crossing 
the said Red River and running thence by a line due north to 
the river Arkansas," 

• What is the plain import of these terms? The boundary line 
was the subject. By a line run by the compass due north from 
Sabine, the beginning point was found on Red River, not far 
above the present town of Texarkana, then following the course 
of Red River westward to the degree of one hundred west longi- 
tude, cross the river by a line again due north, etc. What lines 
were to be run and marked? Was it necessary to run up the 
south bank of Red River to ascertain if the river was there, or 
to hack trees or stones, to be traced by these perishable refer- 
ences? Would these acts, if performed, have made that part of 
Red River more or less the boundary line of the treaty? Such 
line, or marks, have never been established, and sixty-five years 
have elapsed. Yet that same Red River has been and continued 
the boundary all the time. No one pretends that there is, or ever 
has been any dispute about Red River being the boundary line 
of the treaty, from the point where the Chiquiahquihono river 
forms a junction with Red River down that stream to the said 
point of beginning, near Texarkana, a distance, by the river, of 
over 500 miles, and over 300 miles by a straight line. 

All well informed people will admit this, that the boundary 
line for this distance has not been marked, and it, perhaps, 
never will be, as there is no necessity for such act. How did 
this happen? Was it an oversight? Not at all. It arose from 
the fact that the Red River, a natural object — a well known 



— 5 — 

watercourse, with banks, channel, flow of water and a name, 
fully recognized — was made the boundary line, per se. Not a 
traced compass line along this stream, or its meanders, consti- 
tuted the boundary line of the treaty ; this might or might never 
be run; and whether it was or not would not affect the true 
boundary established by the treaty, to wit. Red River. If this 
be true, and it cannot be disputed that it was the river tliat 
made the boundary line, and not a surveyor's line, and that this 
true and real boundary line has been recognized by both parties, 
without a survey, for sixty-five years, why should it not be so 
to the 100th degree of west longitude? Is there any logic or 
common sense in accepting the one and discarding the other? 

We submit there never was a doubt created, much less a 
question, of this obvious truth, until 1857, nearly forty years 
after the treaty. And this is admitted by Mr. Willets, ot" the 
judiciary committee in the Forty-seventh congress, in his report 
on this subject, from which we give an extract: 

'* The question does not seem to have arisen until after the 
astronometrical survey of said meridian, by Messrs. Jones and 
Brown, in 1857 to 1859, in pursuance of a contract between them 
and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who wished to know 
the boundary line between the Choctaw and Chickasaw country. 
They located the 100th meridian as before stated, some eighty 
miles west of the junction of the two forks, and they designated 
the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main branch of the Red 
River. 

"It appears that this designation was at once questioned by 
Texas, and, at the instigation of the senators of that state, Con- 
gress passed an act, approved June 5, 1858 (11 U. S. Stat., p. 319), 
authorizing the President, in conjunction with the State of 
Texas, to run and mark said boundary line. Commissioners 
were appointed on the part of the United States and of Texas, 
who proceeded to their work in May and June, 18G0." 

Upon examination it was found that Captain Marcy, in 1852, 
had established this meridian, and discovered Che-que-ah-que- 
hono, or Prairie Dog Town river, near where he found the 100th 
degree to cross Red River and flowing into said stream from the 
westward, and in his report for the first time gave to this 
stream the name of South Fork or main branch of Red River. 
This was thirty-three years after the treaty, and after he had 
already, as he supposed, established the lOOtli meridian six 
miles below its mouth, not dreaming that it could ever affect 
that question, or authorize anyone, much less his own govern- 
ment, to put it into his mouth more than thirty years after- 
wards, that he intended to declare that the North Fork of Red 
River, as he called it, was not the true Red River of Natchito- 
ches, until he changed its name. 

It is openly claimed on the part of the United States that the 
Morth Fork was not the Red River, and quote Captain Marcy 
from his report as having so declared — and then ignore all that 
was recognized as true concerning Red River prior to this, and 
seize upon the single declaration of Captain Marcy, who named 
Pairie Dog Town River, South Fork — and persist in declaring 
this the stream of the treaty, and not that Red River which bore 



— 6 — 

that name up to this fork and beyond it to its source, then and 
now, while this South Fork never bore that name before, but, in 
fact, bori^owed its surname of Red River from the main stream. 
The North Fork, before Marcy gave it. that name, had no name 
except Red River. If it was not the Red River of the treaty, 
what river was it? Give us its name. No one has given any 
other name for the stream. If any existed prior to this date, 
there is little doubt it would have been unearthed and paraded 
before the commission. 

Captain Marcy has been quoted very often, and made to say 
and intend many things since this question arose. He is still 
living, over eighty years of age, with a very bright and vigorous 
intellect. He was summoned from the city of New York to 
testify before this commission, and did testify, under oath, at 
Galveston, Februar}^ 26, 188G. His testimony is clear and decis- 
ive on this point, and, it seems, ought to settle the question: 

"■ The Prairie Dog Town branch and the North Fork of Red 
River, from their confluences to their sources, are of about eqUcil 
length — the former being 180 miles, and the latter 177 miles in 
length. 

" For reasons, which I will presently state, I have been unable 
to resist the force of my own convictions, that the branch of Red 
River that 1 called the North Fork of that stream was what is 
designated on Melish's map as 'Rio Rojo.' 

"I doubt if the Prairie Dog Town river was ever known to 
civilized men prior to my exploration in 1852; and, if it was ever 
mapped before then, I am not aware of it." 

He is so clear that he is unable to resist the force of his own 
convictions, that the North Fork was the Red River designated 
on Melish's map. Now, the whole theory of the claim of the 
United States rests upon the discovery and names given by 
Captain Marcy to these streams. Who is better able to interpret 
the meaning of his own report in 185<i than the author? 

The theory, then, that Red River, above the junction of Prairie 
Dog Town river, was not known and called Rio Roxo, or Red 
River, tlie same as described in the treaty, being exploded, and this 
claim of the United States becoming, for this reason, unfounded, 
and a mere pretension, why is it that this Red River does not 
continue to be the boundary really, and for the same reason 
that this Red River is the boundary below the forks? It is sub- 
mitted that there is no escape from the conclusion that the North 
Fork (so called) Is the boundary line to the 100th degree of west 
longitude. 

Ordinarily, and before a well organized judicial tribunal, it 
would not be profitable to pursue this inquiry further. But, as 
the subject is one of public concern, and the amount involved is 
of great value, we will adduce further evidence to show that 
Captain Marcy's convictions were correct; that the North Fork 
was the true Red River of Nachitoches, described in the treaty, 
and that the territory along the west and south bank thereof 
has been occupied, and the jurisdiction of Texas and her prede- 
cessors exercised over the same for a very great period of time, 
and that she has always claimed this territory, and her claim 
has not been disputed. 



— 7 — 

The several treaties referred to from February 22, 1819, to 
December 29, 1845, adhere to the Red River as the controlling 
call in them for the boundary from the point of beginning on 
said stream to the 100th degree. Under the convention of 1838, 
commissioners were appointed and did establish the boundary 
from the moutli of Sabine river to Red River. Extracts from 
the testimony of General H. P. Bee are here otTered: 

" In 1839 was secretary on the part of Texas for the Boundary 
Commission for marking the line between the United States and 
the Republic of Texas, in which service the boundary line was 
run and marked from the mouth of the Sabine, in the sea, to 
where the thirty-second parallel of north latitude crosses the 
Sabine river; thence due north to the Red River, which work 
was concluded in the year 1841. 

"In 1843, I accompanied Col. Joe C. Eldridge, Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs of the Republic of Texas, and Thomas Tarry, 
Indian agent for the same, who were sent by President Houston 
to visit the various wild tribes of Indians of the frontiers of 
Texas and invite them to a treaty, proposed to be held by 
President Houston himself, at Bird's Fort, on the Trinity (now 
Fort Worth). 

"Accompanying this expedition, as guides and interpreters, 
were three noted Delaware Indians, Jim Shaw, John Conner, 
Jim Secunda. The two first named were thoroughly acquainted 
with the country through which we passed, and were on 
friendly terms with all Indian tribes inhabiting that country. 
When we arrived at Red River, a stream of great width, 
whose shallow waters were entirely salty, I remember that Jim 
Shaw remarked to us: 'This is the Red River' (this point was 
below the forks); crossing the river we struck the East Cache 
creek, and ascended that clear, beautiful stream to the village 
of the Wichita Indians (near what is now Fort Sill). Leaving 
Wichita village we traversed the country in a northwest and 
westerly direction for about twenty daj^s, in search of the 
Comanche Indians. In the course of this march we approached 
a large river, which Jim Shaw told us was the Red River, the 
same as we had crossed near the mouth of the Big Wichita. 
(This is now shown in the map to have been above the forks of the 
river.") He did not make mention of any other Red River lying 
further to the west. After accomplishing the object of the expe- 
dition, i. e., the meeting with the Comanches, we returned to 
the Wichita village, from which plac(3 I returned to Texas with 
a part of the expedition, crossing Red River at Warren's trading 
house, then the outermost point occupied by the Americans, and 
thence, by way of Bird's Fort, to Washington, arriving in No- 
vember, 1843. 

"At the time I traveled through the country above described, 
there was only one Red River known to us, and judging from 
what Jim Shaw told us. to the Indians themselves. The exist- 
ence of a South Fork I never heard of till the expedition of 
Captain Marcy, in 1852. 

"So far as opportunity was given to me to acquire information 
in 1843, I am satisfied that there was but one Red River known 
to the Indians, explorers and traders in that country, and I did 



not know till the published reports of Captain Marcy that there 
existed the Chiquiahquehono, or Prairie Dog Town river. 

"Prior to 1853, I knew of but one Red River, the Rio Roxo of 
Natchitoches, as called in the treaty of 1819, and to my 
knowledge it had never been called by any other name. The 
only signs along the river were the Indian villages, and the 
country was occupied by roving bands of Indians. 

"Having resided in Texas for forty-nine years, lam enabled to 
say that the right of Texas to what is now Greer county has 
always been held to be incontrovertable." 

It was made the duty of this witness to inform himself fully 
on the subject of the Red River of the treaty, in 1830 to 1841; 
and afterwards, to see the Indians on Red River and talk with 
them of their country. 

The testimony of Hugh F. Young, eminently qualified to 
speak on this question, deposes to wit: 

" In the spring of 1843, I was mustered into the command of 
Colonel Jacob Snively, which was organized for the purpose of 
intercepting Mexican trains (a state of war then existing between 
Mexico and the Republic of Texas) which were carrying on the 
commerce between Santa Fe and St. Louis. The place of 
rendezvous for Snively's command was fixed at ' Old George- 
town,' six miles south of 'Red River,' in the northwestern part 
what is now Grayson couniy; I traveled from Clarksville to the 
rendezvous on horseback, traversing the counties of Lamar, 
Fannin and Grayson, 110 miles. Here the command fully 
organized. A special band or company of spies was selected 
from the main body, consisting of twelve men, being for the 
most part men who had either resided upon upper ' Red Riv^er,' 
or were familiar with it. But I remember we chiefly relied upon 
James O. Rice, who was appointed guide for the spy company. 
He was an intelligent, brave and reliable man, and was a resi- 
dent of Texas prior to 1819, and lived, scouted and hunted all 
along upper 'Red River.' and had been engaged in numerous 
engagements with Indians in that section. He was also familiar 
with the names and languages of both Indians and Mexicans, 
and knew the names of all streams and marked localities in that 
section. There were a number of other men in the command 
who had lived in Texas prior to 1819, and were familiar with the 
facts of history and with the country we were to traverse. 
Colonel Snively instituted the most rigid discipline, and commu- 
nicated to his command the particular instructions by which the 
expedition was to be governed. In these was particularly set 
out that in no event were we to go beyond the limits of Texas, 
as defined between the United States and Spain in 1819, and this 
was specially impressed upon our guide. I may also state that 
from the beginning to the end of the expedition I was a mess- 
mate of Colonel Snively, and kept a daily journal, which I pre- 
served until about twenty years ago, when it was unfortunately 
destroyed by fire. 

"The expedition started April 21, 1843, and as instructed pur- 
sued a route leading up the south side of Red River, and as 
near thereto as convenient for travel, passing the counties (as 
now laid out) of Cooke, Montague, Ciay, Wichita and Wil- 



— 9 — 

barker, thus far having crossed Big and Little Wichita and 
Pease rivers, to the mouth of Prairie Dog Town river, cross- 
ing which, leaving main ' Red River " on our right, we pursued 
our course, about northwest, still as near said river as conve- 
nient, for a distance of fifty or sixty miles, crossing also in the 
interval what our guide and spies called "Salt River " Having 
reached a convenient crossing of main Red River, Colonel 
Snively was assured by our guide and others that we must now 
have arrived at the one hundredth parallel of longittide. We 
crossed Red"^ River, whence the expedition advanced to the 
point where the Santa Fe trail crossed the Arkansas river, 
which we all held was still within the limits of Texas, crossing 
the False Washata, South and INorth Canadian, and Cimaron 
rivers. After the end of the expedition I returned in company 
with Colonel Snively over nearly the same route to Clarksville, 
and in this way I became familiar with the streams, mountains 
and phyical features of the country." 

To the third direct interrogarory he answers: "I learned after ar- 
riving in Texas, from early American settlers, from native Mexi- 
cans, and from Indians of the Indian Nation, where the eastern 
boundary of Texas w^as located, under the treaty of 1819, to-wit: 
Beginning at the mouth of Sabine river, up that stream to thirty- 
second parallel of north latitude, thence north to Red River, 
thence up Red River to the one hundredth parallel of longitude, 
thence north to 30° 30^ north latitude. This boundary followed 
Red River past what is now called South Fork of Red River, and, 
on up the so-called North Fork of Red River. Said streams 
were first called North and South Fork of Red River by Capt. R. 
B. Marcy in 1852. Previously they were always called Red 
River (meaning what is now called the North Fork) and 
Prairie Dog Town (meaning the South Fork). 

To the fourth direct interrogatory he answers : "It was called 
by the Indians and other foreigners mentioned ' Chiquiahqua- 
hono,' which the English speaking people interpreted to mean 
' Prairie Dog Town river,' which is the name I knew it by in 
1843 and ever afterwards. It was not called Fork. It was 
known as above stated and regarded as a distinct and separate 
river, entirely different from ' Red River ' and was always 
called, by the old settlers with whom I have talked, 'Prairie 
Dog Town River,' and whenever there was a rise the water in 
this river took its color from the light colored soil in which the 
prairie dogs made their villages." 

To the fifth direct interrogatory he answers : "It was always, 
prior to 1852, called 'Red River' or 'Rio Roxo of Natchitoches,' 
or 'of Louisiana,' from the earliest time I ever heard any one 
speak of it, and I remember our guide, James O. Rice, distinctly 
gave these names to the two streams. 

"There were all along what I had always knew as ' Red River' 
such signs of Indians and explorers indicating that this stream 
had long been known and visited before our expedition in 1843, 
and, as I said before, many in our command had traversed this 
country before, and gave only the name's above mentioned, 
'Prairie Dog Town river' to South Fork and 'Red River' to 
North Fork. The latter was named from the verv red water 



— 10 — 

which flowed in it, wliich became much redder from a rise. We 
discovered the cause of this to be the very red soil through 
which it ran and this red soil was only above the mouth of 
' Prairie Dog Town River.' During my twenty odd A^ears resi- 
dence on Red River we always knew from the color of the water 
in Red River whether the rain which caused the rise fell on the 
' Prairie Dog Town,' ' Salt and Pease ' rivers which come into 
Red River from the south, or whether it fell on main ' Red 
River' above, where the red soil existed. It was this latter 
that we always regarded as the true boundary line between 
Texas and the United States, and it was so handed down to us 
by tradition of Mexicans and Indians. 

"There is another distinction between Prairie Dog Town 
river, and Red River, which goes to show that the latter 
should be regarded as the main stream, and hence the true divi- 
ding line. 

"' Prairie Dog Town river' runs through a flat country, has 
very low banks incapable of containing much water, frequently 
spreads out over great extent in freshets and is quick-sandy, 
when it has water ; again it is often dry. On this level are 
many Prarie Dog " Towns," which gave name to it. 

•' ' Red River' runs through an undulating country, has clay 
banks and bottom, and affords a much more steady stream of 
water, and never goes dry. 

Thei'e are other tributaries to "Red River' in that section, 
much better entitled, by volume and permanence of water, than 
Capt. Marcy's ' South Fork ' to claim to be the main river, as 
for instance, the 'False Washita.' 

To the sixth direct interrogatory he answers : " The territory, 
known as ' Greer county,' has always, within my recollection, 
been claimed by Texas, both as a Republic and as a State. From 
reliable information imparted to me during my residence in 
Texas, (and in one of the instafices from actual participation,) I 
know that said territory known as ' Greer county ' has at vari- 
ous times been occupied by the military forces of the Republic 
and State, under claim of ownership of same, since April, 1836. 
1. By scouting parties of Texas Rangers, then by Col. McLeod's 
Santa Fe expedition in 1841, which, for the sake of water, fol- 
lowed 'Red River ' (or Capt. Marcy's North Fork,) to its source, 
and thence turned towards Santa Fe ; then by Col. Snively's ex- 
pedition in 1843, as I have fully detailed in former answers. All 
these passed into and through ' Greer county,' under instruc- 
tions not to cross ' Red River,' or not to get off the soil of Texas. 

Texas (Republic and State) has always excercised civil juris- 
diction over the section known as " Greer County, by attach- 
ing it, as unorganized territory, to organized counties, by hav- 
ing her surveyors make locations of Texas land certificates 
upon the lands, issuing patents therefor, etc., etc.; but better evi- 
dence of such fact may be found in the archives of the State." 

A careful examination of Young's testimong will hardly fail 
to show that the North Fork of Red River was in 1843 well 
known as the boundary line of the treaty. 

The testimony of George B. Erath, now seventy-five years old, 



— 11 — 

and who held many high positions in the Republic of Texas, is 
as follows: 

"As a member of the congress of the Republic of Texas (and, 
my impression is, as a member of a committee), it became my 
duty to especially investigate the boundary of Texas, between 
the United States and Texas, in 1843. Colonel Snively, during 
thai year, with a command of Texans, was captured on the Ar- 
kansas, by a force of the United States, it being claimed that he 
was within the territory of the latter. But this had nothing to 
do with Red River. At that time Texas claimed that the head 
of the Arkansas was within Texas territory, which was con- 
ceded by the United States in its subsequent purchase of terri- 
tory of Texas. In this investigation it became necessary to 
place the entire eastern and northern boundary of Texas, and, of 
course, to ascertain from all possible inquiry the locality of the 
Red River, or Rio Roxo, as laid down on the maps extant at that 
day, and referred to in the treaty of 1819, between the United 
States and the Kingdom of Spain. We,^fully as our means would 
permit, examined- the Mexican maps, and such as we could find 
of the United States and Melish's maps. We also, in order to 
ascertain the stream that had been before that date, 1843, known 
Red River, or Rio Roxo, examined old hunters and trappers, and 
others who were familiar with the territory through which the 
stream courses, and from them we could learn nothing of but 
one stream, then and before that time called Redeliver, and that 
is the stream now called the North Fork of Red River. There 
was no stream in 1843 called the South Fork of Red River, nor 
any called the North Fork. I also, while engaged in military 
expeditions on and up the Brazos, during the times I was in the 
military service of the Republic of Texas, met up with old hunt- 
ers and trappers, and made inquiries about the region of country 
on the border of Texas, and as to the streams, and never heard 
from any of them of any but one Red River. I have every rea- 
son to believe that they were fully acquainted with the entire 
region of country in which Greer county is situated. Especially 
in 1837, when engaged in an expedition under command of Cap- 
tain Eastland, which expedition went further westward of the 
Brazos river than any previous expedition, or an}^ before annex- 
ation; we were accompanied by six or more old hunters and 
trappers, who had been for many years hunting and trapping on 
Red River and in the region of the territory embraced in Greer 
county. These men had come from that region to join the expe- 
dition, and importuned the commander to go up to Red River 
and in the region in question, and attack certain Indian villages 
on and in the region of Red River; and they particularly described 
the locality of the villages, and spoke of the streams, and never 
mentioned but one Red River, which, from their description, is 
the one now claimed the North Fork of Red River. They called 
it simply Red River. These men were over fifty years of age, 
and had in their number three whose names I now recollect — 
two Bluers and one Nicholson. A portion of the men of the 
command separated from Eastland's company and went with 
the hunters and trappers on an independent expedition to make 
the attack, and more than half of them were killed before reach- 



— 12 — 

ing Red River, There were eighteen, including the hunters and 
trappers, who went on this expedition, and their nominal com- 
mander was one Vanthuseyere. These hunters and trappers 
spoke of and described the strearix now claimed or assumed to 
be the South Fork of Red River. They described it as a stream 
that at times, when the weather was very wet, or in rainy sea- 
sons, was from one-half mile to a mile and a half wide, with a 
bottom of quicksand, and that, in crossing it, they had to go rap- 
idly, to keep from sinking. They stated tt was called by the 
Comanche Indians, Prairie Dog water. These trappers stated 
that this last named stream connected with the Red River. I 
never heard of this stream being called the South Fork of the 
Red River until after 1856. This was when Cordova went up 
there on a surveying expedition. 

"The river now claimed as the North Fork of Red River was, 
before 1852, known and called by no other name, in English, 
than Red River. In Mexican it was Rio Roxo. I, before that 
time, had never heard the term "fork," applied to it in either 
language. 

"The Santa Fe expedition, authorized by the president of the 
Republic of Texas, in 1841, traversed this region, known as 
Greer county, and it was then claimed as territory of Texas, 
and this claim was not disputed. In 1843 Colonel Snively, by 
authority of the president of Texas, traversed Greer county 
with his comma*id, and it was claimed and treated as territory 
of Texas by President Lamar, who authorized the first, and 
President Houston, who authorized the latter." 

The next witness on these points is S. P. Ross, now seventy- 
five years of age, who has been a distinguished citizen of Texas 
and an officer of the United States army, well able to speak on 
this issue: 

"I am acquainted with the territory named and described on 
maps as Greer county; I have explored all the territory from the 
head of the Coloriado to the Canadian river, and know all the 
rivers and physical features of the country named. In 1847, I 
as captain (above stated), was ordered by the United States gov- 
ernment to give military assistance to Major Neighbors, who was 
then in charge of said Indian agenc}^ and all Indians in Texas. 
He called on me, and I went with my command to the Clear 
Fork of the Brazos, called by the Indians "Tali Kon Ho Mep," 
which is interpreted Snow river. In 1848, I was ordered to meet 
the United States troops in the country of the Comanche Indians, 
at the head of Pease river. I did so. I had Jim Shaw, a Dela- 
ware Indian, as interpreter, and some Indians from five differ- 
ent tribes. Jim Shaw had been their interpreter for a long time, 
and he and those other Indians knew the physical features of 
all the region of country, and knew its mountains and streams, 
and the names by which they were called. I learned from them 
the names of all the rivers in that region of country, and that 
embraced Greer county. 

"In 1858, with a command of over one hundred Indians, in com- 
pany with Captain John S Ford, who was in command of about 
one hundred white soldiers. I went on an expedition agaiust the 
Comanche Indians. We crossed Red River below the mouth of 



— 13 — 

the stream called by the Indians Tech-ah-qua-ho-mep — in Eng- 
lish this means Prairie Dog river. We then went five days' 
travel up the Red River. After the third day, crossing back 
into Texas below Mount Webster. We went about ten miles 
and recrossed. I mean by Red River, the stream now claimed 
as the North Fork of Red River, on the northern boundary of 
Greer county. I had an old Waco chief with me, who, when 
we got up into that region, and at the last named crossing, told 
me that he was born and raised up there on Red River, at that 
place ; and showed me the place, which was at the crossing we 
were then making ; and I asked him what the river was called. 
He replied, Red River. At this place we had with us Jim Logan, 
an old Delaware Indian, who had been an old trader and hunter 
in that region, and who had been with both Capt. Marcy and 
Major Neighbors, in that region, as a hunter. Jim Logan said 
to me, while we were on the east side of this river: 'This is In- 
dian Territory,' pointing eastwardly; and, pointing to the south 
side of the river and directly north, also said : 'That is Texas.' 
Jim Logan also showed me a corner on this river, where, he said, 
Marcy had placed a rock ; and there, pointing north, he 
said, could be found a pile on the mountains, on the line, he 
said, Marcy run, where were cut Marcy's name. Neighbors' 
name. Black Foot's name, and his (Jim Logan's) name. This 
crossing is on the Red River, which is claimed by Texas as the 
northern and eastern boundary of Greer county. We then went 
about ten miles and recrossed the same river, ^he Indians spoke 
of it again as Red River. We then recrossed to the east side, and 
kept up it two days' more travel. During this trip an Indian of 
my command caught a runaway negro and brought him into 
camp. I asked him: 'Did you catch him on Red River?' (on which 
we were then camped). He answered no; and pointing southwest- 
wardly, said he : ' We caught him on "Teach-ah-qua-honop."' 
(Prairie Dog river.) I talked with many Indians. We were all 
interested in learning about the streams and country, and I 
heard no stream called Red River but the one now claimed as 
the north and east(^rn boundary of Greer county, by Texas. All 
the other rivers in that region had distinct names. In 1?59, I, 
as Indian agent, moved the Indians of the Brazos agency to the 
Indian territory, and located them there myself on a hundred 
miles square ; and, with my knowledge of the country and of 
the boundary line, I located them on the Washita, northeast of 
the Wichita mountains. These Indians all understood fully 
that they had no right to locate in or hunt in the territory now 
known as Greer county, as the old Indians seemed to under- 
stand the matter fully. None of these Indians moved or located 
west or above the mouth of Teach-ah-qua-hono — or honop ; and 
were located full fifty miles southeast of the mouth of the Teach- 
ah-qua-hono river. From these facts, I conclude that, by the 
treaty of 1819, referred to in this question, none other could 
have been referred to as Rio Roxo than the Red River which is 
now claimed as the eastern and northern boundary of Greer 
county. I heard of no river other than this as Red River. 

'*I never knew the 'Che-qua ah-qua-hone' - which I spell, 
Teach-ah-qua-hono — to be in any way called or referred to as a 



— 14 — 

fork of Red River; but it was called by the Indian name above 
given, which means, in Indian, Prairie Dog river. It was so 
called because of the numerous prairie dog towns on it. The 
country was the home of the Comanches. 

"J. DeCordova made many surveys in territory known now as 
Greer county, claiming it as Texas territory, in 1856 or 1857. 
Old Indians who spoke the Mexican language always spoke of 
the territory south and west of Red River as belonging to Texas. 
The old ones of them all spoke the Mexican language, and 
seemed to be conversant with the boundary separating Mexico 
from the United States, when Texas belonged to Mexico." 

We submit next the testimony of John S. Ford, perhaps the 
best qualified of any living witness on this subject: 

"At an early date that country was occupied by troops under 
Colonel Jacob Snively, previous to the annexation of Texas. 
During the year 1843 he was moving in that direction for the 
purpose of intercepting a ca,ravan of Mexican traders on their 
way to Santa Fe, and which is in New Mexico, then belonging 
to Texas^ His command was captured by an officer of the United 
States army, Captain Cook. It was then understood that this 
affair happened on the territory belonging to the Republic of 
Texas. The same was made a matter of diplomatic correspond- 
ence and action by the Republic of Texas and of the United 
States. At different dates parties of Texans went into that 
country for various purposes. 

"Land was surveyed by Texas survevors on Red River between 
Prairie Dog river and Red River, and between Red River and 
the False Washita. 

" The jurisdiction of Texas over that territory was never ques- 
tioned by any civilized power as far as I have heard. It is true 
the Indians contested its occupancy by the whites, as they had 
done in every state in the Union. 

" I speak of the boundary line between Spain and the United 
States as it was understood by the people of Texas in 183G and 
since, and that boundary is known as Red River, or what is 
sometimes called the North Fork of Red River. I am not able 
to say at what date the terms North and South Fork of Red 
River were first used. I do know that Indians raised in that sec- 
tion, hunting and campaigning also, 'invariably designated what 
is now called the North Fork of Red River, as Red River. I saw 
them make maps on the ground on various occasions in 1858 and 
1859, and held various councils v/ith them; and they never de- 
parted from this rule. My command in 1858 consisted of 100 
Americans and 113 Indians. Among the whites were men who 
had explored the country, campaigned over it, and helped to 
survey it. They all agreed with the Indians, and always spoke 
of Red River, and always said they meant what is now called 
the North Fork. 

" I hj^ve always understood what the Comanches called 
Teach-a-que-hone-up, or Prairie Dog river, was first called 
South Fork of Red River by Captain Marcy, at a date I 
cannot noV recall. It was always considered to be a distinct 
river from Red River ; and no one, until very recently, Qver 
attempted to confound the two. Their characteristics are 



— 15 — 

different. The Prairie Dog river is broad and sluggish; it stands 
in holes in phices, and has a considerable amonnt of sand in its 
channel and also in the valley. As a general rule, the water is 
shallow. Red River is a narrower and deeper stream ; it has 
more current, and in my opinion furnishes more water than 
Prairie Dog river. The difference between the two streams 
above the junction is strongly marked. No man would be apt 
to mistake one for the other without doing injustice to truth 
and common sense. '' 

"From the year 183G to the date of Marcy's exploration, what is 
now called the North Fork of Red River was known simply as 
Red River — the Rio Rojo — the boundary line between the Span- 
ish possessions in Mexico and the United States, as specified in 
the treaty of 1819. I cannot tell how long what is now termed 
the North Fork was known as Red River. On the North Fork 
of Red River are evidences of encampments, made years ago. 
In 1858, Indians in my command pointed out a spot on the North 
Fork, or Red River, where they had established a village. 'Shot 
Arm,' a Waco chief, an old man, was born and raised at that 
point, which was above the mouth of Prairie Dog river, and all 
the Indians of his tribe said the village was on Red River. About 
the year 1800 Colonel Ellis P. Bean, in his memiors, speaks of the 
Caddo town on Red River, which must have stood, according to 
accounts, not far from the mouth of Pease rivoR Others of the 
Indians in my command had been born in that section, and were 
well acquainted with the whole country, and not one out of one 
hundred and thirteen ever thought of designating any stream 
but the North Fork as Red River. The}^ invariably spoke of 
Prairie Dog river as different and distinct from Red River. 
Their traditions run back to the da3's of the Spanish and Mexi- 
can occupancy of that country and they persistently represented 
the North Foi-k of Red River as the boundary between the 
Spanish and American races, consequently the river mentioned 
in the treaty of 1819. I again refer you to the expedition of 
Col. Jacob Snively in 1843. He was acting under the authority 
of Hon. G. W. Hill, secretary of war during Gen. Hous- 
ton's second term as president of the Republic of Texas. It 
resulted in the armed occupation of the country in question, and 
the eventual invasion of Texas soil by Capt. Philip St. George 
Cooke, of the United States army. Snively's command surren- 
dered to Cooke on the Arkansas river. The congress of the 
United States afterwards acknowledged the claim of Texas to 
the soil and the illgality of Captain Cooke's proceedings. See 
Yoakum's History of Texas, Volume II, page 405, foot note." 

^'"As before stated, the jurisdiction of Spain, the Republic of 
Mexico, the Republic of Texas and the State of Texas extended 
over Greer county for a long period of time, and over all the 
territory south of Red River, or the so-called North Fork. The 
United States exercised no jurisdiction over the above-mentioned 
territory, as far as known, until after annexation, and then only 
through the instrumentality of the articles of annexation. 
Texas occupied the country between Prairie Dog river and Red 
River, notably during Snively's expedition in 1843, during other 
military occupations, and by parties of surveyors, traders, etc. 



— 16 — 

It is not the custom, even in the United States, to attempt to ex- 
ercise civil jurisdiction over a territory infested by bands of 
Indians. 

" The occupation of the county of Greer by troops placed in the 
field by the State of Texas in 1858, and at other periods of time, 
produced no question of ownership to the soil or right of juris- 
diction. After the State of Texas had expended life and treasvire 
in opening up the country in question to settlement, it seems 
rather late for the United States to interpose a claim of owner- 
ship and jurisdiction. 

In order to more fully explain the foregoing, it is necessar}'^ to 
state that in 1858 I was appointed to command the State troops 
of Texas operating against the hostile Indians; that early during 
the year I formed an encampment near the mouth of Hubbard 
creek, on the Clear Fork of the Brazos. In April of said year 
an expedition was fitted out against the hostile Comanches. It 
consisted of one hundred Americans and one hundred and thir- 
teen friendly Indians, the latter being under the control of Capt. 
Shapley P. Ross, agent for the Brazos reservation, on which was 
located various tribes of Indians, During this campaign we 
struck Red River near the Wichita mountains, and moved up 
the same, crossing and recrossing to suit our convenience. We 
made a number of encampments in what is now known as the 
county of Greer, and became pretty well acquainted with its 
topography. We passed up the valley of Red River, or what is 
now called the North Fork of Red River, into the gypsum region. 
On the 12th of May, 1858, we fought and defeated the Comanches 
on the South Canadian, and returned back from that point. 
Early in the spring of 1869, I was again campaigning on the 
waters of upper Red River against the hostile Indians, and again 
had friendly Indians under my command. During these opera- 
tions I became acquainted with the Indian views concerning 
Red River, and all agreed, without exception, that what is now 
called the North Fork was the Red River of Louisiana, and the 
same stream mentioned in the treaty between Spain and the 
United States in 1819." 

Governor Sam Houston, who had lived among the Indians on 
Red River at an early period, and who, at that time, was no 
doubt the best informed of any living white man concerning 
the Red River of the treaty in this region, as well as with the 
traditions of the Indians, on April 28, 1860, instructs William 
H. Russell, the commissioner of Texas appointed to establish 
this very boundary line, as follows: 

" Melish's map, of the date herein before mentioned, lays down 
the North Fork as the main prong, and the treaty of limits, also 
referred to, declares that the boundary line shall be determined 
as laid down in this map. 

" In the prosecution, then, of the survey, you will be guided by 
Melish's map, and insist upon the North Fork as the main Rio 
Roxo, or Red River, and as the true boundary line, as described 
in the treaty of 1819. 

"Should the United States commissioner insist upon making 
the Keche-qui-ho-no, or Fi^airie-dog-toiun river, the boundary, 



I _ 17 _ . 

you will, notwithstanding, co-operate with him in running the 
line — hut you will do it under written protest. 

" The traditional history of the Indian tribes along its banks, 
the evidences of Marcy's survey, and the prominent features laid 
down in Melish's map, alike establish the faot that the North 
Fork is the main prong of the Red River, consequently the joint 
commission has nothing further to do than to run the line 
according to the treaty of 1819." 

This evidence is of the utmost value, from men of great age and 
unimpeachable character, whose official duties required of them 
to examine the upper Red River, to meet the Indians as friends 
and enemies, to call to their aid, as guides, old, friendly, intelli- 
gent Indians, and the most intelligent and noted trappers, 
hunters and traders among the white men acquainted with that 
country. Some of these Indians, quite old, having been born on 
upper Red River, could point out the villages, then in ruins, 
where there fathers and grandfathers had been born, reaching 
back to a remote period in the century of 1700. These old guides 
were fully interrogated touching every material point concern- 
ing Red River, its occupation, the period of its settlement, the 
villages, forts, roads, streams, names, and, generally, the physi- 
cal features of that country. The folk-lore of the Indians and 
white guides, running back to a remote period, always valuable 
in such an investigation, because it is unbiased, unerringly 
established two things: 

1. That the Red River of Nachitoches had been known so 
long that no fixed time could be given when it was not known 
by these people, and that this stream continued by this name to 
the source of what is now North Fork of Red River; that they 
knew the Chi-qui-ah-que-hono as a distinct and different river, 
and never confounded the two rivers. ' 

3. That along this Red River of Nachitoches the Indians had 
lived for generations; that villages there existed, and the ruins 
of ancient villages were pointed out. where their ancestors had 
once resided and passed away. That trails run along this stream 
between the forts established by white people at an early day. 
That the limits of the treaty were well known to be this Red 
River. That Mexican and Spanish traders traversed the country. 
That the Republic of T.exas defended this very country to Red 
River as a limit of her boundary, and sent several military 
expeditions along this line, and in this way occupied the country 
to the same extent that all new countries are occupied among 
hostile Indians, by military force, until a period when the Indians 
were driven off. 

From these sources, then, it would seem that the question of 
the true limit and the occupancy of the country were established, 
especially as there is no evidence, beyond mere assertions, to 
the contrary. 

It will appear that the United States have not exercised juris- 
diction over Greer county in any other sense than claimed, 
through Indian agents. No settlement has. been permitted. We 
refer to a letter on this subject, to wit: 

Mr. Secretary Schurz, who held, in letter addressed to the 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, dated April 25, 1879, as follows: 



■— 18 — 

"None of the land or general laws of the United States have 
been extended to any part of the Indian Territory, except as to 
crimes and punishments and other provisions regulated by the 
intercourse acts. 

■'This being the condition of things, it is clear that no author- 
ized settlement could be made by any person in the Territory, 
except under the provisions of the intercourse laws, such person 
having first obtained the permission provided for in those 
statutes. 

"It may be further stated that no part of said Territory 
remains free from appropriation, either to a direct trust assumed 
by treaty or by reservation for tribes thereon, under executive 
order, except that portion still claimed by the State of Texas, 
and lying between Red River and the North Fork of the same. 
(See the various treaties, agreements and executive orders from 
1866 to the present time.)" 

And H. Price, commissioner of Indian affairs, January 31, 
1884, in a report referring to the location of the several tracts of 
land surveyed and numbered, among others, that surveyed by 
Jones and Brown in 1857 to 1859, uses this language : 

"Tract numbered 25 contains an area of 1,511,576.17 acres, 
and is unassigned. 

"There is some question as to the status of this tract. The 
State of Texas claims and attempts to exercise jurisdiction over 
it. It is called Greer county. I do not think the claim of the 
State to this tract of country is well founded." 

It is quite natural, this commissioner should think the claim of 
Texas not well founded. Still both he and his predecessors re- 
garded it as sufficiently well founded, not to take possession of 
it, and assign it to any Indian tribe for a home. It will be noted, 
too, that it had been surveyed and mapped by Jones and Brown 
for more than twenty-five years previous to that date. 

The United States has in fact acted on the true meaning of the 
treaty, recognizing that Red River was the boundary line to the 
100th degree, and not Prairie Dog Town River, notwithstanding 
the survey of Jones and Brown and the pretentions of the 
several Indian commissioners. 

On February 24 1879, Congress created and established the 
northern judicial district of Texas, and* actually included and 
treated Greer county as a part of Texas returnable to Graham, 
This was a solemn act of the law-making power of the govern- 
ment, after full and mature discussion, and by this act the 
boundary limit to the North Fork of Red River was recognized 
to be the real treaty limit. It is true that Mr. Willet in Con- 
gress, after this, in 1882, attempts to apologize for the act of 
Congress and again mooted the question, sufficiently, perhaps, 
to , give notice to Congress of the error, if one was committed. 
He says : 

"Texas adopted and acted upon the report of her commis- 
sioner as settling the question of boundary, and established the 
territory in dispute as a county of that State, naming it Greer, 
,and has assumed jurisdiction over it; and by an inadvertance, 
not singular in our legislative history, the United States, by act 
of Congress approved February 24, 1879 (see 20 U, S. Stats, , p. 



— 19 — 

318), included said county of Greer as a part of Texas in the 
northern judicial district of that State, not annexing it for judi- 
cial purposes, but recognizing it apparently as an integral part 
of Texas." 

This was made the report of the judiciary committee of Con- 
gress. Now if it was an error to treat Greer county as a part of 
Texas, it was quite easy to amend that law and exclude it. 
Congress, after proper notice did not do so, and it may be fairly 
presumed that Congress concluded that it was correctly included 
as a part of Texas territory. 

This will become the more apparent when it is known that 
the committee on territories had made a report to Congress on 
the same subject, in which this language is used : 

"By the legislature of Texas this territory has been indicated 
as an integral part of the state, defined and designated as Greer 
count}^ (Revised Statutes of Texas, p. 132); it has been placed in 
land districts (Id., 548); its vacant and unappropriated public 
domain has been set apart, one-half for public free schools for 
the education of cliildren of Texas, without reference to race or 
color, and the other half for the payment of the state debts 
(Acts Sixteenth legislature, p. 16); it has been placed in judicial 
districts (Acts Sixteenth legislature, p. 28 : Acts Seventeenth 
legislature, p. 8); it has been included in state senatorial and 
represenative districts, and is a part of the eleventh congres- 
sional district of that state. 

"In August, 1881, one James S. Irwin was indicted in the (state) 
district court of Wheeler county, Texas (to which county the 
territory now in dispute had by statute been attached for judi- 
cial purposes), for the murder of one Bryson, committed in Greer 
county. The defendant was brought to trial. A plea to the 
jurisdiction of the court was by him entered, upon the ground 
that Greer county was not a part of Texas, nor subject to its 
jurisdiction. The said district court, Hon. Frank Willis, judge, 
overruled the plea, held that Greer county was a part of Texas, 
and that her courts had cognizance of offenses therein commit- 
ted. Bryson was convicted of murder in the first degree, his 
punishment assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the peni- 
tentiar}^ for life, was sentenced accordingly, and is now serving 
a life-term in the state prison of Texas. 

' In a still more recent case before the same judge it was sought 
by parties owning property in Greer county to resist the payment 
of taxes to the authorities of Texas, and, by injunction, to 
restrain the collectiontbereof, because it was alleged that Greer 
county was a part of the Indian Territory, The court upon 
hearing dissolved the injunction, and held that the assessment 
and collection of taxes in the said territory by the officials of 
Texas was legal, thus again deciding in favor of the jurisdic- 
tion and dominion of Texas over the tract of country in contro- 
versy." 

Texas has never doubted her right to the territory of Greer 
county. As early as 1855 to 1857 Cordova located lands, as shown 
in the evidence, in that county before the county was created, 
for prior to this date the territory was included in Cooke county. 

It is worthy of note that the act of Congress of June 5, 1858, 

i 



— 20 — 

authorizing the appointment of commissioners, jointly with 
Texas, to run and establish the boundary line in dispute, is as 
follows, to-wit: 

"Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That such landmark 
shall be established at the said point of beginning on Red River, 
and at the other corners, and on the said several lines of said 
boundary as may be agreed on by the President of the United 
States, or those acting under his authority, and the said State of 
Texas, or those acting under its authority." 

It is obvious that it was not even contemplated to trace a line 
along the river itself, because that was the real boundary; it 
was only to establish the corners, such as the point where the one 
hundredth degree of longitude crossed Red River, that was in- 
tended by the act. 

Under said act and the instructions by the two governments, 
a part of the boundary was established and approved; but the 
commissioners disagreed as to which stream was Red River; 
each commissioner, for himself, established a corner and monu- 
ment, properly lettered to mark it; the United States commis- 
sioner, on Prairie Dog Town river, and the Texas Commissioner 
on Red River, or the North Fork (so-called). The Texas com- 
missioner (W. H. Russell), in his report, 1860, on this point, says, 
to-wit: 

'*' "Arriving at this point, I addressed a communication to the 
United States commissioner, which, with his reply, I herewith 
submit. 

"From this it will be seen that the United States commis- 
sioner declined co-operating with the Texas commission in 
running and marking that portion of the 100th meridian lying 
between the Canadian and Red Rivers. It is true that a United 
States party had run this line in laying off the boundaries of 
the Indian agencies or territories, but as Texas was not repre- 
sented in this work, it was the duty of the joint commission to 
run this line conjointly, as though no survey of it had been 
made. 

"I had expressed a willingness and a determination on my part 
to accept the 100th meridian as established by the United States 
party, above referred to; because, from the evidence I could get, 
I believed it to be correct ; therefore, an apprehension that I 
would insist on a re-determination of the meridian, on part of 
United States commissioner, is entirely unfounded and cannot 
be urged as a reason for declining his co-operation. 

"It would be proper to show here that the 100th degree of 
longitude, as established, is correct. 

"The astronomical determinations on the Mexican boundary 
survey, made by Major W. H. Emory, United States army, are 
justly regarded as a basis for the minor surveys in the interior 
of the continent. The 103d meridian, as established by the 
United States commissioner and my predecessor in office, was 
transferred from one of the determinations above alluded to, 
and afterwards corrected by its prolongation from the Kansas 



— 21 — 

boundary survey, as determined by Colonel Johnston, U. S. A. 
Then, as the connection between the 100th and 103d meridians 
is perfect, botli directly agreeing- with the determinations on the 
Mexican and Kansas surveys, the lOOth degree of west longitude 
may be regarded as one of the most accurately established points 
in any of the interior surveys. 

"Having determined to accept the lOOth meridian, I com- 
menced tracing it southward from its intersection with the 
Canadian river on the tenth of June, and finished it to the north 
prong or main Red River on the thirteenth of the same month. 
On the north bank of Red River the line was marked by a 
monument, fifteen feet in diameter, seven feet high, with a 
large wooden shaft in the center, marked on the north fa(;e, 
'100 W. L.,'on the east, ' In'd. Terr y.,' on the south, 'Texas,' 
'Red River,' and on the west, 'Texas, I860.'" 

So, it will be seen that the boundary line north of Red River 
was run separately by one member of the commission, and the 
corner established separately on each of said rivers. But 
both governments accepted as correctly established that part of 
the line north of Red River, and have since acted on it as cor- 
rect. 

Texas approved the corner of the boundary thus established 
by Russell, and has exercised her jurisdiction over said territory 
by legislation, executive and judicial acts regularly ever since. 

We submit some of the legislative acts covering this territory 
since the boundary was established: 

An Act Creating the County of Greer. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of 
Texas, that all the territory contained in the following limits, ' 
to- wit : Beginning at the confluence of Red River and Prairie 
Dog river, thence running up Red River, passing the mouth of 
South Fork and following main, or North Red River to its inter- 
section with the twenty-third degree of west longitude ; thence 
due south across Salt Fork and to Prairie Dog river ; and thence 
following that river to the place of beginning, be, and the same 
is hereby created into a county to be known by the name and 
style of the county of Greer. 

Approved February 8, 18G0. 

Attached to Montague county by act of November 6, 1860. 

An act to set aside the public lands embraced within the terri- 
torial limits of the county of Greer to educational purposes and 
for the payment of the public debt. Approved February 25, 1879. 

Made part of the thirty-fifth judicial district by act approved 
February 15, 1881. 

Made part of "Clay land district " by act approved March, 
11, 1881. 

Act providing for appointment of commissioners to run the 
boundary line between the State of Texas and the United States, 
approved May 2, 1282. 

Made uart of thirty-fifth judicial district by act of March 27, 
1888. 



— 32 — 

Made part of thirty-first judicial district by act of September 
1, 1884. 

Made part of Wheeler land district by act approved April 9, 
1883. 

Made part of thirty-fifth judicial district by act approved 
January 30, 1884. 

Made part of thirty-first judicial district by act approved Feb- 
ruary 5, 1884. 

Act approved March 36, 1885, provides for hearing of writs of 
error from. 

Attached to Wheeler county for judicial purposes by act 
approved April 1, 1885. 

The State of Texas, \ I, J. W. Baines, secretary of state 
Department of State, f of the State of Texas, do hereby cer- 
tify that the foregoing is a correct abstract from the general 
laws of the State of Texas concerning the creation and other 
legislation pertaining to the county of Greer, by the legislature 
of the State of Texas. 

Witness my official signature and the seal of state, affixed at 
the city of Austin this twenty-first day of June, A. D. 1886. 
[l. s.] . J. W. Baines. 

Secretary of State. 

Again, attention is directed to the convention between the 
Republic of Texas and the United States, and to that part of the 
boundary west from the point where it began on Red River. It 
says: 

' 'And that the remaining portion of the said boundary line shall he 
run and marked at such time hereafter as may suit the convenie7ice 
of both the contracting parties, until which time each of the said 
parties shall exercise, without interference of the other, luithin 
the tdrritory of which the boundary shall not have been so marlced, 
and run, jurisdiction to the same extent to which it has been here- 
tofore usually exercised.'" 

Now, what part of the boundary line was to be run and 
marked? Not Red River. The first corner was established 
under this very agreement, and the act of June 5, 1858, required 
only the corners established and to begin for corner where the 
one hundredth degree of west longitude crossed Red River, over 
500 miles by the Red River from the first corner to the second 
corner. Is it not clear that Red River was adopted between 
these corners as the boundar}' line without a surveyor's line and 
marks of an ordinary kind? If this be found true, then had not 
both of said governments exercised jurisdiction on each side of 
said Red River, the then known boundary line? 

And was it not the expressed intention of the contracting 
parties that each should exercise in this territory ''jurisdiction 
to the same extent to whicli it has been heretofore usually exer- 
cised^^? Upon this contract the republic acted, and in 1839 and 
1841 the line on the east and the beginning corner on the Red 
River was established not far from where the town of Texar- 



— 23 — 

kana now stands, and where the 30° 30^ of north latitude crosses 
Red River. That corner estabhshed the controlling call in the 
treaty; from thence to the next corner, some 500 miles, where the 
one hundredth degree crosses Red River, has never been traced 
by compass line — both parties have continuously adhered 
to it, and based all public and pprivate acts upon it. 
Millions of acres of lands have been allotted and assigned to the 
Indians on the east side by the United States, and Texas has 
laid out the counties of Bowie, Red River, Fannin, Lamar, 
Grayson, Cooke, Montague, Clay, Wichita, Wilbarger and 
Greer on the west side of this boundary line. Vast property 
rights have vested on both sides, and yet no line was ever 
traced, but all knew the boundary and acted upon it, and are as 
much bound by it as if two persons, the owners of a tract of 
land, go upon it, and divide it, on the ground, by fixed natural 
objects, and each takes possession of his part agreed upon. 
Neither party would be heard to complain after the lapse of 
years that there was a mistake. 

By the plainest principles of justice the United States is 
estopped both in law and in fact from now asserting a claim to 
Greer county. 

II. 

The Texas commission presented three affirmative issues and 
a final pleading, in response to the final one on the part of the 
United States, all of which are printed in the record and re- 
ferred to here. 

All of these issues are now considered together and presented 
in the following, to-wit: 

"The real question is : Was the North Fork the Rio Roxo of 
the treaty, and laid down on Melish's map, or was the Prairie 
Dog Town river ? Which was known by the framers of the 
treaty ? Which was known prior to that time ? Which was 
laid down on Melish's map ? Which stream, whether it be large 
or small, long or short, wide or narrow, deep or shallow, was 
really intended by the treaty?" 

Under this proposition we will consider the evidence and 
deductions therefrom in two parts: First. Did Melish's map de- 
lineate the North Fork (so called) as the Rio Rojo, or did it lay 
down the Prairie Dog Town river on said map as the Rio Rojo? 
Second, Which of these streams were known by the framers of 
the treaty, independent of Melish's map ? Were they both 
known ? If not both known, which was intended to be the 
boundary line ? 

III. 

Melish's map, improved to Januay 1, 1818, made part of the 
treaty, does delineate a river thereon, named Rio Rojo, or Red 
River. Was that stream intended to be and represent what is 
now called North Fork of Red River; or Prairie Dog Town river? 

We will examine the map of Melish and the maps referred to 
by his map, and the maps since, to the map of Captain R, B. 
Marcy, in 1852, for light on this question. 



— 24 — 

Melish's map, improved to January 1, 1818, was referred to and 
made part of the treaty in this language : "The whole as being 
laid down on Melish's map of the United States published at Phil- 
adelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818.'' Now the Rio 
Rojo of Natchitoches delineated on this map is the boundary line 
of the treaty ; and if that fact can be determined from this map by 
the aid of evidence, in explanation, it is our duty to do so. Some 
misapprehension has arisen about the sources of information 
possessed by Melish, and it is claimed he was in great error and 
misled the framers of the treaty. Melish, however, published a 
book about the same time of his map, from which an extract is 
submitted on the part of the United States commission in evi- 
dence, which shows that the author had explorod all attainable 
sources of information. He used Baron de Humboldt's map of 
New Spain west of the one hundredth degree of longitude, Mr. 
Darby's map.f or South Louisiana and eastward, and had followed 
IJumbolt east of the one hundreth degree to Mississippi, as the 
base of his map, until he saw the manuscript of Mr. Bringer, who 
had made a very accurate survey west of the Mississippi river 
to 2od degree from Washington; and also he obtained access to 
Lieut. Pike's notes, and after seeing these he erased the old data 
from the^plates, and inserted the corrected data from these sources. 
So he had all the data of a reliable nature on this special point 
that seems to have been known, with slight exceptions, till 1852. 

On the map of Humbolt, publish in 1804, Red River of Natchi- 
toches has no southern branches or forks, until beyond Santa 
Fe. It shows the Wachita, but does not name it, and the Caddo 
flowing into it from the north side, and shows settlements along 
the entire river. He no doubt believed that the source of the 
Canadian river was the source of Red River, and did not deline- 
ate the Canadian on his map if known; and this was a common 
error indulged in for a long time, that the waters since known 
to flow into the Canadian were believed to be the sources of Red 
River. Two points are made by this map, however; that Red 
River was then known as one continuous stream, without 
branches or forks flowing into it from the south and west, and 
that it had settlements along its entire course, being known to 
civilization. 

The map of Wm. Darby is almost a literal copy of Humbolt's 
for upper Red River. It differs only in laying down an unknown 
small stream nearlj'' east of Santa Fe, flowing south-east into 
Red River a little south of the branch called by Humboldt Mora; 
while both of these were more than one hundred miles north-west 
of.the source of Red Riveras now known. Darby, however, does 
show five streams, two of which are named, flowing into Red 
River on the north side, and, like Humbolt, shows that Red 
River was known as one main continuous stream, with no south- 
ern forks, and that this stream was known on its north side by 
the fact that the streams since found there were then knovvn. 
This was owing, no doubt, to the fact that the great Spanish 
oad from Santa Fe to Natchitoches led down the east side of this 
river. 

We have not been able to find a map by Mr. Bringer nor ob- 
tain one by Lieutenant Pike, although one of Pike's has been 



— 25 — 

examined, and it does not change this view. Hence the next 
map in order is that of Melish, which is the most important to 
consider — in fact, it was the basis of the treaty and constituted 
a material part of it. Without this map and the references to 
and delineations thereon, it may be said there was no intelligent 
understanding between the two governments; therefore this map 
and a projDer understanding of its meaning must tend to make 
plain the question now being considered. "Which stream was 
the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, described in the treaty, the North 
Fork (so called) or Chequeahquehono,or South Fork (so called)?" 
We ask a candid investigation of this map upon its face, and 
in the light of the evidence before and since it was published, 
January 1, 1818. 

1. The treaty called for only three rivers, the Sabine, Red 
River of Natchitoches, and Arkansas. No branches, prongs or 
forks were mentioned. 

2. The treaty called for a course westward up the Red River 
from the point where a line run due north, from the corner on 
Sabine river, intersected said Red River. Wherever said stream 
meandered in the west, this boundary line should follow, subject 
to one limit. 

3. The limit of this natural boundary line fixed, was a point 
on Red River where the one hundredth degree of longitude west 
from London crossed said stream. 

4. These were the calls of Melish's map and the treaty, and 
showed Red River and the one hundredth degress of west longi- 
tude delineated thereon. Whether they were truly presented or 
not does not materially affect the question to be decided. The 
real question was then, and now is, was there a Red River in 
that region flowing from the westward, and was there the one 
hundredth degree of west longitude crossing said stream ? The 
two contracting parties then believed these facts existed, and 
acted upon them as existing, and subsequent investigation has 
shown them to be true. It was not necessary for either party 
to know the exact location of the one or tlie other — that is, 
just where the Red River was, or the one hundredth degree 
crossed it. The fourth article of the treaty provided that these 
unknown facts should be ascertained afterwards, to wit: 

•'Art. 4. To fix this line with more precision, and to place the 
landmarks which shall designate exactly the limits of both 
nations, each of the contracting parties shall appoint a commis- 
sioner and surveyor, who shall meet before the termination of 
one year from the date of the ratification of the treaty, at 
Natchitoches, on Red River, and proceed to run and mark the 
said line from the mouth of the Sabine to the Red River, and 
from the Red River to the river Arkansas." 

5. The map became a positive truth with this provision in the 
treaty, because it showed the Red River of Nachitoches and the 
one hundredth degree of west longitude, and the exact locality of 
each has since been found, and in a deed or treaty that which can 
be made certain is treated as certain. And it becomes wholly 
immaterial as to how much error and confusion then or since 
existed as to the sources or forks of Red River, and as to the 
relative sizes of these streams. Look upon this map, and it will 



— 26 — 

be seen that the Arkansas river is laid down as running into the 
Mississippi river, and no other stream between this and Red 
River of Louisiana. This stream is the first south and west of 
the Arkansas that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. 

6. The Canadian river was not then known nor laid down as 
crossing as far west as the one hundredth degree; the space be- 
tween "Red River and Arkansas had one watershed, partly 
drained by both streams. The first Red River, therefore, south 
of the Arkansas river, which drained that territory and flowed 
into the gulf, must have been the Red River intended by the 
treaty. And it does not detract from the force of this position 
to admit that the exact locality of that stream was then un- 
known, it being declared the boundary, its course was to be fol- 
lowed to the westward, wherever it might go, until crossed by 
the one hundredth degree. 

7. You will search this map in vain to find any stream flow- 
ing into it from the south and west side from the ninety-seventh to 
one hundred and second drgree of longitude, a distance of gome 
300 miles; but on the north side there are four laid down (three 
without names). And you will be equally disappointed in your 
search for any stream running parallel for the same distance; 
the two streams — the Arkansas and Red River — only appear in 
this locality, and they are distinctly named. 

8. The Prairie Dog Town river. Big Wichita and Pease river, 
and the Canadian river, do not appear on this map, and yet they 
have since been discovered in this region, all running substan- 
tially in the same direction, and all crossed by the one hundredth 
degree of west longitude; three of them flow into Red River 
from the south, while the upper Canadian was, at the date of 
the map, supposed generally to be Red River, or to be one of the 
sources; and it drains part of the watershed between the 
Arkansas and Red River. Why should not one of these 
streams be adopted as the boundary line? These streams 
each have the characteristics of rivers, and are now so 
recognized, and lie in that region, and run in the proper direc- 
tion, and may have become the boundary line if so agreed. 
But to make one the boundary, each government must have so 
determined as running the line up one stream rather than an- 
other, would make a difference of millions of acres of land; 
hence have been a matter of consideration. None of these 
rivers were discovered until many years after the treaty. Are 
these new and recent discoveries to become a factor in the de- 
termination of the boundary line of the treaty — are they to con- 
trol the plain import of the treaty itself? You must see that the 
United States would not have consented for the Canadian river 
to be substituted for Red River, and the line run up that stream 
to where the one hundredth degree crossed it, because it was not 
the stream of the treaty, and she would lose immensely by it. 
And it is equally plain that Spain would not have agreed for the 
line to run up Prairie Dog Town river, it not having been men- 
tioned in the treaty, and by which she would be the loser. The 
map is or is noj; the law on this question; it must be followed if 



— 27 — 

it can be understood. The first duty is to see if the map can be 
understood, and, if consistent with the terms of the treaty; if 
not, does it contradict the treaty to such an extent that it cannot 
}je construed with it? 

9. It will be observed that Red River was the boundary line 
of the treaty, the stream bearing this name, and no other. Con- 
sider yourself in the very position of the two ministers of the 
contracting governments, examining the map for a line of 
boundary and limits. You will not forget that this line was 
limited west by the one hundredth degree. The stream was not 
to be followed to its source, but only to where the one hundredth 
degree crossed it. Now, with this data in hand and the map 
before them, could the thought have been for a moment enter- 
tained as to the width of the stream, the hight of its banks, the 
amount and flow of the water, the length and where its sources 
were? The exact channel through which the stream flowed, 
the exact direction, the quantity of water and all such matter 
did not enter into the consideration. It only concerned the par- 
ties, then, to know that there was a Red River in that territory, 
that it flowed from the westward and that it was long enough 
for the one hundredth degree of west longitude to cross it, when 
the boundary line would leave it and run due north to the Arkansas 
river. If, in fixing a boundary line between the two nations, 
such minor matters were to control subsequently as fast as dis- 
covered, then the line would be so unstable that property rights 
would be of little value, but what is more, peace could not long 
be maintained. 

10. The North Fork of Red River does substantially agree 
with the Red River of Melish's map — does no violence to it as 
laid down, because it is the first stream south of the Arkansas 
and its tributaries at its source. It rises in a region westward 
from the point of beginning on said river and westward of the 
point where Melish's map fixed the one hundredth meridian, as 
well as westward of the point where the one hundredth meridian 
is now truly located — and therefore flowed across the one 
hundredth meridian — to the east and southeast. This same 
stream had been known since 1543, referred to in history and 
exploring expeditions, was used as the basis for a line of forts 
by the Spaniards. The great Spanish road from Santa Fe to Fort 
Natchitoches descended along the east bank of this stream and 
by this line of forts. Old Indian villages were located along it 
to a point above where the one hundredth degree crossed it. 
Baron Humboldt delineated this one continuous stream on his 
map in 180-i. Lieutenant Pike, in 180G, referred to it and tried 
to explore it, but was misled. Still he obtained most valuable 
data concerning its course and sources. Wm. Darby, before 
1818, had obtained sufiicient information to delineate this river 
through the same region, and Mr. Bringer, before 1818, referred 
to by Melish, had made a survey of that country as far west as 
the one hundredth degree, as marked on Melish's map. No 
other Red River did flow in an easterly and southerly direction 
through that territory, then being divided. If no South Fork 
had been discovered, would it have ever been doubted for a 
moment that this was the veritable Red River of the treaty? 



— 28 — 

Was it not the Red River of the treaty the day the treaty was 
signed, and did it not so continue to be till Captain Marcy 
claimed to have discovered Prairie Dog Town river, and called 
it South Fork, or main branch of Red River? Is this to change 
the rule? If so, the boundary might have been changed as many 
times as new prongs of Red River were discovered after the 
treaty, and in that case Big Wichita, Pease river and Prairie 
Dog Town river in turn would have been the boundary, which 
is preposterous. i 

But under the evidence now shov^n a different view may be 
taken, merely to show the folly of leaving the map and river 
of the treaty, to adopt some other, because a new name may be 
given to it. The False Washita, Big Wichita, Pease river, and 
the North Fork, each flow in an easterly direction and the one 
hundredth meridian crosses the sources of each. It is shown, 
too, that at certain seasons of the year the water flowing in 
each is about the same, little more, perhaps, in False Washita 
river. You will note that the Red River becomes the boun- 
dary far below the mouth of any of these rivers. 

Now, can you imagine what reason was suggested that in- 
duced the United States, through her officials in her land office, 
to follow the course up Red River, passing the mouths of each 
of these rivers successively, until the Prairie Dog Town river 
was reached, and then and there declaring this last stream for 
the first time named, in 1852, to be the boundary line ? It is 
quite plain that the streams flowing into the Red River from the 
north below the North Fork, would not be adopted — because 
that territory was already occupied by the United States and 
such a line would have caused loss of country — and it is equally 
plain why the rivers flowing into Red River, from the south, 
were not called the line because lands were located by Texas on 
these streams, her people occupied and claimed the country, and 
there was no pretense that any of these streams had ever been 
known as Red River. It is more probable that this pretention 
was first set up because it extended the area of territory a little 
further westward for the United States and land speculators in 
that region urged it upon the government. 

It might be noted, too, that in the search for the real Red 
River in going up that stream, it will be found that the North ' 
Fork shows itself to be the dominant controling river in this, 
that it is narrower, with high banks and bold flow of water 
above the junction, while the South Fork is a wide sand bed, 
often dry, very low banks, and enters from a westward course 
into the North Fork, or main river. The effect of this is visible 
for only a few miles below the junction, when the North Fork 
becomes dominant and the controlling stream, for it again flows 
through high banks and along a deep channel and strong cur- 
rent, and this continues below the mouths of the several rivers 
that make into it below. 

11. Let us for a moment, however, drop the map made part 
of the treaty, and admit, for the sake of argument, that there was 
nothing in the name of Red River of Natchitoches, and that any 
other river found in that region possessing the proper charac- 
teristics would do as well. We will adopt an extract from one 



— 29 — 

who has written on this exact subject and which expresses our 
"views : 

" If the map stream is not to control, then what are the char- 
acteristics of the stream that will control ? 

"1. Its length. 

"3. Its width. 

*' 3. Its volume of water. 

"4. Its constancy of flow. 

"5. Its navigability. 

"6. Its proximity to the Arkansas, or 

"7. The source of its head waters. 

" And from what sources are we to draw our information — the 
Treaty River being laid aside. We can but come to subsequent 
discoveries. 

" 1. There is no great difference between the lengths of the 
North and South Fork of the Red River and the Washita. In a 
straight line the south fork rises furthest west ; but take the 
tortuous channel of the north fork, and it measures as great, 
if not the greater distance. The Washita is but little shorter. 

" 2. The south fork is the widest. 

*'" 3. As to the volume of water and constancy of flow, neither 
the north nor south fork is to be compared with the Washita. 

•' 4. Neither the north nor the south fork is navigable at all, 
except in rainy seasons, while the Washita is navigable at all 
times by light-draft boats. 

"5. The Washita is nearest the Arkansas. 

"What makes a river? It is, not the width of sand bed over 
which water flows in freshet times. It is not its length; but it 
is its normal condition in volume and constancy of flow of 
water. If length should govern, then the Missouri ought to be 
the Mississippi, and if width, then the Canadian would be the 
Arkansas. 

"If the tributary of Red River which furnishes the greater 
volume of water, which runs constantly, navigable at all seasons, 
and which is nearest the Arkansas, but not flowing into it, be 
Red River, then the Washita is Red River, and to find treaty 
boundary we will be forced up it to where the one hundredth 
meridian cuts it." 

This conclusion, you will admit, is absurd ; but is it more 
absurd than to start at the beginning of the boundary line on 
Red River and pass along up tiiat stream, disregarding the Big 
Wichita, False Washita, Pease river and the North Fork (so 
called), and at last cross the North Fork and adopt the Chi-qui- 
ah-que-hono river as meant and described in the treaty? 

The truth is that there never has been any dispute about Red 
River being the Red River of the treaty up to the junction of 
Prairie Dog Town river, and no confusion, likely, could or would 
have arisen if Captain Marcy had not given that river the name 
of South Fork of Red River. 

12. Again, Melish's map shows two streams rising in the 
thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh degrees of north latitude, flowing 
in a southeasterly direction and forming a junction a little west 
■of the one hundred and first degree of longitude; these streams 
^t and near their junction both take the same course that the 



— 30 — 

North Fork is now known to have; there is, as stated, no stream 
noted from the west, on the south, for three hundred miles of 
Red River, and none at all to correspond to Prairie Dog Town 
river. No map prior to this shows such a stream, and the soli- 
tary reference to any white man knowing of this Prairie Dog 
Town river is the expedition of Fragoso, in 1788, from Santa Fe 
to Fort Natchitoches, of Louisiana. He descended the west side 
of this stream, and gave it the name of Rio Blanco, or White 
river — doubtless from the white earth worked up by prairie 
dogs and the white sand in the bed of the river. But these dis- 
coveries were not known or published until now. This informa- 
tion is found in an old Spanish manuscript obtained by Texas 
during her provincial days and filed among the archives of the 
land ofRce, where it lay "till the Texas commission had it trans- 
lated into English. It is very evident that it has never been 
referred to in the history of Texas. It was not known to Melish, 
for if he had obtained possession of it he would have laid this 
river down on his map as Rio Blanco, or White river. Nor did 
Melish's successor in 1823 show this stream on his improved 
map. The Mexican government did not have this data pub- 
lished, because Desternell, who made three maps, and whose 
first map was used as the basis of the treaty between the Repub- 
lic of Mexico and the United States in 1838, and whose last map 
of 1846-7 was used as the basis of the treaty between the same 
governments in 1848, did not show the Rio Blanco, or White 
river. The atlas of Carey & Lea of 1822, delineating this region 
of country, shows but one unnamed stream flowing into the Red 
River from the south, thus admitting clearly that this fact was 
not known. * 

Lieutenant Emory, in his map of 1844, describes Red River as 
one continuous stream, without southern branches, and fixed its 
source at about the one hundred and third degree of west longi- 
tude. Thus it is plain that none of these maps attempted to 
show the Rio Blanco, or White river, of Fragoso, nor the Chi- 
qui-ah-qui-hono river. 

In fact, it was never explored and published until 1852, by 
Captain Marcy. Fragoso had as well never traversed Rio Blanco 
as to have done so and had his manuscript filed away until 
ninety-eight years afterwards. What map since the treaty of 
1819, until that of Captain Marcy in 1852, shows any South Fork 
of Red River? We answer none. Melish could not have known 
of the Rio Blanco or White river (now called Prairie Dog Town 
river), because no such name was given it, and the course and 
the way it flows into the other stream are so variant as to lead 
to the opposite conclusion. But why would he have named this 
stream Rio Rojo if he knew it from Fragoso? Sucli conclusions 
are largely drawn from the imagination, and took their rise first 
from the fact that Captain Marcy gave a new name to the Che- 
qua-oh-qua-ho-no, and since this it has been built upon and added 
to by the reports in the land oflice at Washington and by com- 
mittees who have given the subject a partial and hasty investi- 
gation. 

We submit on this point an extract of a review of the claims 
of the United States from one who has given much thought ta 



— 31 — 

the subject, which will meet many of those untenable positions 
assumed concerning this map: 

A short review of the claim of the United States to Greer county^ 
as forniulated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office- 
in his letter to the Secretary of the Interior, dated May 10, 1877, 
and reiterated by the report of Mr. Willetts from the Committee 
on Judiciary. {See House Report No. 1282, Jf.7th Cong. 1st 
Sess., and the letter of the Secretary of the Interior to the Presi- 
dent, under date of the eigth of Januayry, 1884). 

As Mr. Willetts' report adopts the letter of the Commissioner 
of the General Land Office of the tenth of May, 1877, and makes 
it a part of his reporfc, and as the letter of the Secretary of the 
Interior contains no new matter of particular interest, except 
that it corrects the error committed by the Commissioner of the 
General Land Office of the tenth of May, 1877, in the sixth 
claim set forth by liini, I will confine my remarks principally to 
that report. 

After stating the importance of the issue involved, Mr. Wil- 
letts says: ''The real question in dispute is which branch or 
fork of Red River is the main branch or the continuation of the 
river. The initial point of investigation is the treaty between 
the United States and Spain dated February 22, 1819, in which 
this part of the boundary is defined as follows : 'After it strikes 
the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches of Red River, it then follows the 
course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude 100 
west from London, and 23 from Wasliington, then crossing said 
Red River, and running thence by a line due north to the Ar- 
kansas, etc. The whole being as laid down in Melish's map of 
the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 
first of January, 1818.' 

"By this it will be seen that the western boundary of that 
portion of the United States lying on and north of the Red River 
was said one hundredth meridian, and that its southwestern 
corner was where said meridian crosses the river. At the 
date of that treaty this region had never been accurately ex- 
plored, and the fact was not known that Red River divided into 
two branches before it reached said meridian ; in fact, the very 
map referred to in the treaty, makes the river a continuous 
stream and does not lay down the North Fork at all. 

"Subsequent surv.eys have discovered the 'two forks,' and 
have definitely located said one hundredth meridian about 
eighty miles west of where the two forks form the river proper. 

"The treaty with Mexico dated January 12, 1828, recognizes 
the boundary as stipulated in aforesaid treaty with Spain, as 
did the joint resolution admitting Texas into the Union. 

"Even at as late a day as her admission into the Union, there 
was no knowledge of uncertainty in this boundary." "Lieuten- 
ant Emory made a map for the War Department in 184-4 (which 
is now in the land office), on which the North Fork is not laid 
down and on that. Red River traces nearly the course of the 
Praire Dog Town fork. Disturnell's map of Mexico, dated 1848, 
follows in this regard Emory's and Melish's maps." 



— 32 — 

Now what does Mr. Willetts mean when he says : "The very 
map referred to in the treaty makes the river a continuous 
stream, and does not lay down the North Fork at all ?" It cer- 
tainly does not lay down the South Fork, for it was geograph- 
ically unknown to civilized man for thirty-four years after the 
map was published. Because the map does not show the North 
or South Fork to be where subsequent surveys prove them to be, 
does that justify Jones and Brown in ignoring the treaty en- 
tirely by making the line leave Red River and running it almost 
at a right angle up the Prairie Dog Town fork, and definitely 
locating the hundredth meridian on that stream about eighty 
miles west of Red River ? Verily, I do not understand this 
mode of reasoning. The treaty confines the boundary line to 
the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River. Now, if the Prai- 
rie Dog Town river was twice as long and twice as wide, and 
was in point of fact the main branch of Red River, it could not 
figure as a boundary line according to the treaty of the twenty- 
second of February, 1819, because it was known or believed by 
all the early explorers, traders and travelers before the treaty 
was signed and since it was signed that the waters of the Red 
River of Louisiana ran far north of the waters of the Prairie 
Dog Town fork. All of which is demonstrated by Humboldt's 
and Melish's maps. Captain Pike's Report of 1806-7, Colonel 
Long's Report of 1819-20, Captain Marcy's Reports of 1849 and 
1852. 

Mr. Willetts says: " Lieutenant Emory made a map for the 
war department in 1844 (which is now in the land office), on 
which the North Fork is not laid down, and on that Red River 
traces nearly the course of the Prairie Dog Town fork." Why 
this peculiar language, unless it be to lead the unwary to believe 
that Mr. Emory intended eight years before its discovery to show 
the Dog Town river to be the Red River of Louisiana? 

The commissioner of the general land office uses similar lan- 
guage. He says: "It further appeajs that neither the Melish map 
nor that of Disturnell shows the North Fork of Red River." 

Lieut. Emory compiled his map in his office, from the data be- 
fore him. He places Red River in its proper position — that is, the 
first river south of the Washita. As to any North or South Fork 
in the vicinity of ninety-ninth meridian, he knew no more about 
them than did Melish or Disturnell, or any other geographer, for 
the forks were not discovered by any civilized man until 1852 — 
eight'years after his map was compiled. Consequently he had to 
guess at the course of the upper Red River, and as he did not 
change the course, at the ninety-ninth meridian to a due no-rth 
direction in place of a westwardly one, it is evident that the 
guess was incorrect. So it will be seen that the whole claim of 
the United States to Greer county is based upon the erroneous 
guess of Lieut Emory in laying down the course of Red River 
on his map of 1844. Fortunately, an error on a map creates no 
error in the rivei^ it attempts to lay down. It simply upsets the 
argument based upon the error of the geographer who laid down 
the course of the river incorrectly. 

The Red River is there to show for itself. " It rises in the east- 
ern edge of the Llano Estacado, within twenty-five miles of the 



— 33 — 

Canadian, flows in an easterly course until it encounters the. 
"Wichita mountains, thence it turns south, and receives the Salt 
Fork (Red River is about eighty, Salt Fork sixty feet vvide at 
their junction), having wound its way around the mountains, 
and having its waters increased by those of the Kechequehono 
and Pease rivers, it resumes its eastern course." 

In going up it, as directed by the treaty, at about the ninety- 
ninth meridian, west longitude, it changes its course to nearly 
due north, and continues in that direction, inclining slightly to 
the west through about a degree of north latitude. Some ten or 
fifteen miles above the point where the river changes to a north 
course, the Prairie Dog Town fork flowing from a westwardly 
direction empties into the Red River. 

So, that it will be seen, that if Lieut. Emory's map had laid 
down Red River correctly, it would not have traced " nearly the 
course of the Prairie Dog Town fork." 

Melish's map of 1818 having been compiled before any explo- 
rations had been made and before the discoveries of the Washita 
(according to tracing of Red River accompanying Mr. Willet's 
report), the Prairie Dog Town fork and other tributaries of Red 
River contains the same errors in regard to the North Fork and 
the South Fork that Emory's and Disturnell's maps do; but there is 
no disguising the fact that it makes the Red River that runs near- 
est to the Arkansas river the boundary line between the United 
States and Spain, according to the treaty of twenty-second of 
February, 1819. 

Because the treaty says: "After the boundary line strikes the 
'Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River,' it then follows 'the 
course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude one 
hundred west from London and twenty-three from Washington.' 
No matter how incorrectly the river may be laid down on the 
map, all you have to do is to follow the river as it is to the one 
hundredth meridian." 

Among other things which Mr. Willetts states in his report 
herewith accompanying, and to which I refer, he says: 

" So far from Captain Marcy being clearly of the opinion, as 
Governor Houston claimed, that the North Fork is the main 
branch, his flnal opinion was in favor of the North Fork." From 
the fact of its rising further west than the South Fork, he did 
state, and it was so published in his report in difl:erent places, 
that the Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no, or Prairie Dog Town fork, was 
the main tributary of Red River, or main branch, etc. The 
treaty makes no reference to main branch or main tributary of 
Red River. Subsequent discoveries, however, have demon- 
strated its vast deficiency in water, compared with the North 
Fork. 

If Mr. Willetts, in any part of his report above mentioned, 
intended to convey the idea that Captain Marcj^'s report, pub- 
lished in 1853, in any particular strengthens the claim of the 
United States to Greer county, he does great injustice to Captain 
Marcy and his report. Captain Marcy's orders instructed him 
to commence his explorations at the mouth of Cache creek, and 
travel up on the north side of Red River. He left this point on 
the seventeenth of May, 1852. On the twenty-second he says: 



— 34 — 

''We arrived upon an elevated spot in the prairie, where we 
suddenly came in sight of Red River, directly before us. Since 
we had last seen the river, it had changed its course almost by 
a right angle, and here runs nearly north and south, passing 
through the mountains in front of us. We continued on for four 
miles further, when we reached a fine, bold running creek of 
good water (Otter creek). We encamped about four miles above 
its confluence with Red River." (See Marcy's report, pp. 13 
and 14.) 

While encamped on Otter creek, Captain McClelland estab- 
lished the one hundredth meridian six miles below the mouth 
of the Prairie Dog Town fork, which gave both streams ta 
Texas. 

There is not one word in Marcy's whole report that goes to 
show that he did not knotu that the ''North Fork" [an appellation 
given by himself) was in reality the "Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, 
or Red River." All the Indians he met on his travels up it, called 
it Bed River; they spoke of the "Prairie Dog Town fork" as a 
different stream entirely, and one that the Indians rarely ever 
visited, as the bitter water killed their children, etc. Captain 
Marcy traveled up Red River to its head spring, calling it indis- 
criminately "Red River," "North Fork" and ''North Branch of 
Red River," which he clearly intended should be convertable 
terms. He knew that the False Washita was the North Fork 
or North Branch of * Red River, and by long odds the principal 
tributary. 

He established the head of the Red River of Louisiana, in 
latitude 35° 35' 3". and twenty-five miles from the Canadian, and 
in close proximity to the spot where Beaver (his Indian guide) 
assured him three years before, during his exploration of the 
road to Santa Fe, the source of Red River would be found. (See 
page 181.) 

The object and aim of the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office, in his letters of tenth of May, 1877; of Mr. Willetts, in his 
report from the judiciary committee. No. 1282, Forty-seventh 
Congress, first session, and the letter of the Secretary of the 
Interior, dated January 8, 1884, appear to be to prove that the 
"Prairie Dog Town Fork" is a continuation of the Rio Roxo of 
Natchitoches, or Red River, and must be the streams laid down 
on Melish's map of 1818. As the Prairie Dog Town Fork was 
not geographically known until thirty-four years after Melish's. 
map was compiled, it occurs to me that it will be impossible_ to 
have that stream figure as a boundary line without violating 
the treaty of twenty-second of February, 1811*. 

13. We do not see how the map since 1818 could really affect 
the one made part of the treaty. There is really no material 
change in respect to Red River until 1852. Since then all the 
maps have more or less conformed to the changes wrought by 
the discoveries then made and published. 

From the foregoing we conclude that Melish did not intend to 
delineate on his map the Rio Blanco or White river, named by 
Fragoso, and with whom that name died; nor the Chui-qua-ah- 
qui-hono, or Prairie Dog Town river of the Indians; nor the 



— 35 — 

South Fork of Red Biver, discovered and published to civilized 
man in 1853. But that he intended to, and did describe the Rio 
Roxo, as his map shows, and, concering which, he had lar^'e in- 
formation, coining down since 154:3; and the little stream shown 
on his map, and which has no name (just east of the Red 
River), he, no doubt, had some information concerning it, but not 
enough to designate it accurately or give it a name. It would 
be a thing almost incredible to suppose that the great Spanish 
road leading from Santa Fe to Fort INatchitoches could have 
passed down the east fork of this unnamed stream without giving 
it a name; and that the Indians, who had villages in that vicin- 
ity, and who hunted up these streams, should have known so 
little of it as not to find a name, especially when the very small 
creeks were named. The Red River of the treaty is that Red 
River named on this map, and along which was the ancient vil- 
lages, forts and trading roads; this was the river, and no other 
laid down on that map. And the unbiased mind that will care- 
fully examine the evidence can hardly escape this conviction. 

We will conclude this branch of the subject by offering ex- 
tracts from the testimony of Captain R. B. Marcy, from whom 
all the confusion has arisen. He was sworn and testified Feb- 
ruary 36. 1S86, with Melish's map before him. He says : 

"The Rio Rojo, or Roxo, upon Melish's map, is almost entirely 
south and west of the Wichita mountains, but in close prox- 
imit}' to them — viiich is in accord with my determination of the 
position of the North Fork, while there are no mountains upon, 
the Prairie Dog Town branch. 

"The head of the Rio Roxo, upon Melish's may, is put down as 
in latitude 37'-^, while, upon my map. the true latitude is 35)4°, 
while th^ Prairie Dog Town river rises in about 34)^° — so that if 
his Rio Roxo was intended to represent the ' Prairie Dog Town 
river,' it would be 3^° of latitude too far north. 

"I doubt if the Prairie Dog Town river was ever known to 
civilized men prior to my exploration in 1853; and, if it was ever 
mapped before, then I am not aware of it. 

" It is very certain that the ' Prairie Dog Town river' was 
never delineated upon any of our maps, or designated by any 
Spanish. French or English name, as were most of the other 
streams in that country, and it was only known to the Indians 
and possibly to some Mexican traders as the ' Ke-che-ah-que-ho- 
no,' a Comanche appellation, the signification of which the 
Delawares informed me was ' Prairie Dog Town river.' 

"I regarded the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main Red 
River, for the reason that its bed was much wider than that of 
the North Fork, although the water only covered a small por- 
tion of its bed, and as the sandy earth absorbed a good deal of 
the water after it debouched from the canyon through which 
it flows, it may not contribute any more water to the lower 
river than the North Fork. 

"The Prairie Dog Town branch and the north Fork of Red 
River, from their confluences to their sources, are of about equal 
length — the former being 180 miles, and the latter 177 miles in 
length. 

" For reasons which I will presently state, I have been unable 



— 36 — 

to resist the force of my own convictions, that the branch of Red 
River that I called the North Fork of that stream was what is 
designated upon Melish's map as 'Rio Rojo.'" 

II. 

Second proposition made under the second general division: 

Which stream, North Fork (so-called) or South Fork (so 
called), was known at and before the date of the treaty, Febru- 
ary 22, 1819? Which of these streams was in the mind of the 
framers of the treaty, and actually made the boundary line? 

It is admitted that there was a Red River of Natchitoches; 
the framers of the treaty admitted it, and based their articles of 
agreement on this as a substantive truth, it having been known 
more than three hundred years, and so well known that it was 
made the controlling call in the boundary line for nearly five hun- 
dred miles. Two calls were made on this river, both of 
which have since been found and verified. There is no dispute 
whatever about said river for a distance of over four hundred 
miles. From the beginning corner up to the junction of Prairie 
Dog Town river, it is the boundary line. It is only above this 
point that trouble is found. 

The treaty in fixing this boundary called for Red River, a 
natural object; it was delineated on the map or plat, was known 
by no other name, and by actual verification on the ground has 
been found to substantially correspond with the description in 
the deed or treaty. They must control in fixing the true line, 
over the fact that some thirty years later another stream was 
discovered flowing into the first, much larger and longer, with a 
a different name, and then for the first time the name of South 
Fork of Red River given to it. Under a proper interpretation 
of the treaty, and the evidence adduced, the Red River de- 
scribed in and intended by the treaty was that continuous 
stream running westwardly from the said point of beginning 
then and ever since known as Red River; notivithstanding in 
1852 the new name of North Fork of Red River was given to it, 
and another larger and longer stream was discovered flowing 
into it, known by a totally different name, and that name 
changed so it might be applied to the previously known stream 
of Red River. 

The correspondence between the ministers of Spain and the 
United States, covering a period of more than three years be- 
fore the signing of the treaty of the twenty-second of February, 
1819 shows that they were in possession of all the reliable pub- 
lished information concerning the Red River and the territory 
then being divided. Each minister offered one proposition after 
another, Spain seeking to fix the boundary line to the eastward 
and the United States westward of where it is now, under the 
treaty. It was claimed by Spain that Red River of Natchitoches 
had its source only a few leagues from Santa Fe, and the de- 
mand of the United States to make it the boundary line to its 
source was exorbitant and would not be considered. And it was 
finally agreed to follow the Red River to where the one 



— 37 — 

hundredth degree of west longitude crossed it, thence north to 
the Arkansas river. Neither party then knew of but one Red 
River in that region. Another Red River was expressly men- 
tioned to be within the interior part of the Spanish provinces — 
merely to distinguish it from this Red River of Natchitoches — 
and Melish's map, then before them, did not show the Cheque- 
ahquahono, or Prairie Dog Town river, and at the point on Red 
River where the one hundredth degree of west longitude was 
made to cross it, by Melish's map, there was no other 
stream for many miles above and below ; and no name or refer- 
ence was then made to any other stream. Hence it is fair to 
conclude that the Red River of Natchitoches, delineated on 
Melish's map, was only considered, and the treaty intended to 
adopt and make that continuous stream, and no other, the 
boundary line. 

By reference to the evidence in the record of Captain Marcy, 
H. F. Young, George R. Erath, S. P. Ross, H. P. Bee, John S. 
Ford, the letters of Governor Sam Houston and Governor E. M. 
Pease, and message of Governor O. M. Roberts, besides extracts 
from many ancient writings, books and maps, covering a period 
of time reaching far beyond the date of the treaty of 1819; all of 
this tends in one direction, and most conclusively establishes 
the fact that the Red River of the treaty is the same stream 
called North Fork of Red River in 1852, and since that time has 
been generally styled by that name. 

This mass of evidence, freely quoted from in the first part of 
this argument, fully establishes the fact that the Prairie Dog 
Town river never luas known, designated or confounded with 
Red River until Captain Marcy gave it that name. Marcy him- 
self distinctly swears that it was not the Red River of the treaty 
or that laid down on Melish's map, and details his reasons for 
this conviction, which are convincing in the extreme. 

The Indians and their ancestors knew of the Chi-qui-ah-que- 
ho-no river, but did not and could not inhabit it; the tradition of 
this stream was that its waters would kill their children. Hence 
it was that their villages, homes, camps, trails and hunting 
grounds were upon the Red River. Again, the Indians, in giving 
names to streams and natural objects, use that name which 
describes some quality of the thing named. This being true, it 
would hardly be possible to mistake or doubt which of these 
rivers was Red River. 

It distinctly appears in evidence that Red River flows through 
red clay formation, while Prairie Dog Town river flows through 
a whitish soil worked up by prairie dogs; the one causing red 
water, the other whitish; Red River the name of one, Prairie 
Dog Town river the other. Fragoso, in his expedition down 
Prairie Dog Town river in 1788, named it Rio Blanco, or White 
river, no doubt for the same reason that the Indians named this 
river. And Young, in his testimony, says, in his experience of 
twenty years residence on Red River, he could always tell by 
looking at the rise in Red River far below the forks, from what 
stream the rise came, by the color of the water. 

The Prairie Dog Town river could never have been regarded 
in the true sense a river^ for it is dry a very large part of every 



— 38 — 

year, as the evidence given by nearly all the witnesses shows. 
W. A Pitts, in his evidence, speaks of it in 1858 as follows: 

"I went with a scouting party, being an old Indian hunter. 
We took with us Indian scouts and guides. We had two main 

guides — 'Jim Pockmark* was one, and Doss, the other. 

They were familiar with upper Red River, having lived there, 
and their fathers before them. 

" The orders given us were to keep on Texas territory. We 
took our course nearly due north, struck Red River near the 
mouth of Pease river, crossed to the north or east bank and 
camped. The next day we started up the east bank, the river 
{Red River) running nearly north; passed here the point marked 
by Marc}^ as the one hundredth degree of longitude ; passed a 
large sand fiat on the west side ; it had no water visible. It 
looked like a sand valley two or three hundred yards wide, with 
low banks on both sides. I asked the Indian guides what it was. 
They said it was the mouth of the ' Kechi Aque-ho-no,' in 
English, ' Prairie Dog Town river.' It did not look like a river 
to me, as there was no water in it. 

"That evening we recrossed Red River above the mouth of 
Prairie Dog Town river, and just above a grove of tall cotton- 
wood trees, and camped on the south or west side of Red River. 
Our Indians some of whom had been born on this river, as well 
as their fathers before them, said this stream was Red River, 
and that the stream below was Prairie Dog Town river. They 
did not use the word ' fork ' of Red River, nor the words 'north' 
or 'south,' in speaking of them. 

"My knowledge of the two streams was like that I had of the 
town of Bonham, for instance. When I was in Bonham, the 
citizens called it Bonham, and I heard it called by no other name; 
when I was on Red River the Indians who had lived there, 
called it Red River, and by no other name. We had been ordered 
up Red River, and when we got to this point the Indians told us 
that was Red River. I heard them talk of it, and refer to it ; 
but they never called it anything else than Red River. 

" They also spoke of the other river, and called it Prairie Dog 
River, or ' Kechi-aque-ho-no,' and when we passed where it 
mouthed into Red River they called it by these names, and that 
is the way I knew the names of those two rivers." 

This kind of evidence could be accumulated covering a period 
of the last fifty years that this stream. South Fork, so called, had 
very little water in it most of the year. Reference is made to 
the testimony of Lambert and Maddox for its condition in recent 
years. It is fair to conclude that this river presents about the 
same appearance now that it did in 1819, or in 1852. It was not 
the dominant river of the two streams. The controlling river, as 
shown by the banks, flow of water and depth, was Red River, 
and had always been so regarded. 

From the evidence, then, we conclude that the Red River 
described in the treaty, independently of Melish's map, as known 
at and before the treaty, and as known and recognized by both 



— 39 — 

nations after the treaty until 1859, some forty years, was that 
continuous Red River from the point of beginning westward to 
where the one hundredth degree of west longitude crosses it, 
but in 1852 named North Fork of Red River by Captain R. B. 
Marcy. 

In conclusion we submit that the evidence and law applicable 
and the jurisdiction exercised fully establish the propositions 
described and discussed in this report and argument, to wit: 



That the United States is estopped from now asserting any 
rightful claim to the territory in dispute. 

II. 

That the Rio Rojo, or Red River, delineated on Melish's map 
is the true and veritable stream called North Fork of Red River 
thirty-three years later, and which was made the boundary of 
the treaty. 

III. 

That the Rio Roxo described in the treaty, outside and inde- 
pendent of Melish's map, was then and had been known for 
nearly three hundred years; that there was but one such stream 
in that region called for by the treaty; it was afterwards found 
to substantially correspond to the treaty call, and that stream is 
the same stream that continued by this name for more than 
thirty years afterwards, until changed by an officer of the 
United States, without the consent of Texas. 

Therefore, Texas insists that the North Fork of Red River is 
the true Red River of the treaty, and that the one hundredth 
degree of west longitude from London and twenty-third from 
Washington should be located and the boundary line established 
and marked on said Red River, by which the territory of Greer 
county will be included in the State of Texas, and the boundary 
line of the treaty established. 

Respectfully submitted, 

J. T. Brackenridge, 

Chairman. 
W. S. Herndon. 

W. H. BURGES. 

G. R. Freeman. 
June 23, 1886. 



SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT. 

Office of Texas Commission, t 

Austin, Texas, July 8, 1886. S 
Resolved, That the suplemental argument and conclusion pre- 
sented by W. S. Herndon to Section I of the Report and Argu- 
ment of the Texas Commision of June 23, 1886, and omitted 
when the same was printed, be and the same is hereby adopted, 
and shall be referred to and considered as a part of said Report 
and Argument and made part of the record. 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by vote of three mem- 
bers, fco-wit : J. T. Brackenridge, W. H. Burgas by J. T. Brack- 
enridge, proxy, and W. S. Herndon. 

J. T. Brackenridge. 
Chairman of Texas Boundary Commission. 



Again: we assume an additional ground of estoppel against 
the United States, independent of the views before expressed, 
which we trust will commend itself to the consideration of the 
joint commission, that undertlie joint resolution of the Congress 
of the United States of first of March and twenty-ninth of De- 
cember, 1845, and the joint resolution and ordinance on the part 
of the Republic of Texas, dated twenty-third of June and fourth 
day of July, 1845, by which the Republic of Texas became one 
of the states of the Union, certain conditions were to be per- 
formed and certain guarantees were given on the part of the 
United States to the new State of Texas and her people; one of 
which was that Texas should retain all her vacant and unappro- 
priated lands to pay her liabilities, etc.. and the residue of said 
lands "to be disposed of as said State may direct;" another of 
said guarantees was, that "said State to be formed, subject to 
the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary 
that may arise with other governments." It was agreed, too, 
that "the territory properly included within, and rightfully be- 
longing to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new 
state, to be called the state of Texas," etc. Reference is made 
to the acts themselves, Paschal's Digest of Laws, pages 44, 45 and 
46. You will observe from these several acts that a solemn con- 
tract was made and concluded between two high contracting 
parties, upon valuable and other, the highest considerations that 
can possibly influence men or nations. No one will doubt the 
immense value to the United States of this acquisition from the 
Republic of Texas, nor the fact that it was done after the most 
mature discussion and consideration of all subjects of difference. 



y^- 



^ 



— 42 — 

All " territory propealy included within and rightfully belonging 
to the Republic of Texas" should be included in the new state of 
Texas, and disposed of by Texas as she should direct; "aZ/ ques- 
tions of boundary that may arise with other governments'' shall 
be adjusted by the United States. These matters were considered, 
and entered into the contract, and the United States agreed and 
undertook to settle them then and there, so far as Texas was 
concerned, for the considerations received. Examine these sev- 
eral acts unde]' the facts then surrounding them, and can it be 
doubted that the true intent was for the United States to assume 
on her part to guarantee to Texas a republican and stable gov- 
ernment, a good and valid title to all the territory properly 
included withui and rightfully belonging to the Republic of 
Texas, with the right to sell the lands of this territory, and so 
far as the limits of this territory was concerned, it was then and 
there conceded by the United States to Texas as rightfully 
claimed, and any difficulty arising between Texas and Mexico, 
or other government, on the subject of boundary, the Uuited 
States agreed to adjust. This was done with the distinct idea in 
view that Me^^ico was then seeking, and would continue to seek 
to recover all or a part of Texas back to her government. The 
conflict did come, the boundar}^ question was raised, and the 
United States defeated the claims of Mexico, and settled all 
questions of boundary between Texas and Mexico. "Wow Texas 
succeeded to all the territory to which Spain was enwtled under 
the treaty of the twenty-second of February, 1819, and so held 
and exercised jurisdiction over this territory now in dispute, 
while a part of Mexico ; afterher independence of Mexico, from 
April, 1836, she held military possession of it under the military 
expedition of Captain Eastland and others; from then till 
December 29, 1845, and this possession by her military 
forces continued up to the day these agreements, 
guarantees and transfers -v^re made and concluded, as the evi- 
dence abundantly shows.f Did Texas, through these means, 
acquire a good and valid title to this territory? Was this title 
guaranteed and warranted by the United States against all 
claimants ? By these agreements and considerations Texas 
could settle no question of boundary with any other government. 
Will it be contended that the Uuited States agreed that the ques- 
tions of boundary between Texas and other governments should 
be adjusted by her, and after all such questions were settled 
with others/that then the United States would turn upon Texas, 
and treat the boundary as unsettled between them, and dispute 
the claim of Texas to that very territory to which she had de- 
fended her title? / It cannot be supposed that the United States 
made or had any/secret reservations at that time or since. The 
United States acted fairly then and will do so now. When the 
subject is understood the United States will abandon her claim, 
set up by Indian agents and land speculators, and quiet Texas 
in the title and possession of this territory. We submit under 



— 43 — 

this view that Texas acquired a good and valid title to all the 
territory rightfully claimed and included within the limit of the 
Republic of Texas on the 29th day of December, 1845, the day 
that the Republic of Texas ceased to exist, and her territory be- 
came one of the States of the Union ; and that the United States 
eliminated the question of boundary from further dispute be- 
tween Texas and other governments ; and guaranteed to Texas 
the peaceable possession and right to dispose of her lands as 
she may deem proper. These solemn acts of the two govern- 
ments referred to, ending in the anexation of Texas as a State 
of the Union for the considerations named therein, constitute the 
title-deed of Texas to the county of Greer, the territory now in 
dispute, and the United States is estopped from re-opening this 
question and setting up a claim to this territory, 

W. S. Herndon. 



FINAL ARGUMENT 



OF 



UNITED STATES COMMISSION, 



Office of Joint Commission in Boundary between 
THE United States and the State of Texas. 
Austin, Texas, July 14, 1886. 
Mr. J. T. Brackenridge, Chairman of the Texas Boundary Com- 
mission, 

Sir: — The Commissioners on the part of the United States and 
Texas have offered all attainable evidence bearing- upon the 
points at issue between the two governments, that might prop- 
erly be considered by the Joint Commission, and have drawn 
their conclusions from them. We will now, in accordance with 
the rules of procedure, recapitulate the facts aud opinions 
expressed on both sides, so as to conclude our deliberations and 
proceed with the work before the Commission. 
These facts are to be found in : 

A. The original presentation of the issues by the United 
States Commissioners, March 4. 

B. The statement of the issues and claims of Texas, offered 
by the Texas Commissioners, March 8. 

C. The review of evidence on the part of the United States 
unanimously concurred in by her Commissioners, June 21. 

D. Report and argument of the Texas Commissioners, signed 
by Commissioners Brackenridge, Herndon, Surges and Free- 
man, June 33, to which Commissioner Freeman made a condi- 
tion in a letter to the Joint Commission, July 8. 

E. Additional argument of the Texas Commission, signed 
by Commissioners Freeman and Brackenridge, and conditionally 
by Commissioner Burges, June 2j. 

F. Argument of C(i)mmissioner Brackenridge on the claims 
of Texas to Greer county, July (i. 

G. Review of statenient of the United States Commission, 
(C) bv Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges, 
July 7. 

H. Supplemental argument by Commissioners Brackenridge, 
Burges and Herndon, July 9. 

We accepted the resolution requiring each Commission in turn 
to present evidence in support of the claims of its own govern- 
ment, because we believed this to be the most effective way to 
bring all matters bearing upon the question to the consideration 
of the Joint Commission, and not with the idea that it was 



— 2 — 

incumbent upon us to argue in favor of assigning the land to 
the Indian Territory rather than to Texas. Nor do we deem 
that such a course would be conducive to a proper discharge of 
our duty as Commissioners. It cannot be too strongly urged 
that we state our views and hear those of the other Commission- 
ers "for the purpose of narrowing the controversy to the fewest 
possible proportions consistent with the grave duties imposed 
and the results to be attained." We wish that this and our pre- 
vious papers should be considered rather as an investigation 
than as an argument. We have set forth ah the facts in evi- 
dence as the}^ have appeared to us, and will now proceed to 
review, as concisely as possible, what each Commission has said. 
Some of the papers from the Texas Commission have been pre- 
sented in the form of an argument, and if our answer is not in 
similar form, we hope to be excused from all imputation of dis- 
courtesy. It is very valuable, for the purpose of investigation, 
to have before us the individual views of each of the Commis- 
sioners from Texas. Still, we cannot help thinking that much 
time would liave been saved, and perhaps the matter have been 
narrowed down, if the individual Commissioners had omitted to 
spread upon their arguments those points that had already been 
ansv^/^ered. 

Moreover, we cannot but think that in many instances the 
nature of our duties has been altogether mistaken or over- 
looked. 

Some of the Commissioners appear to regard the law as un- 
just. We do not coincide in this view and regret that so much 
valuable time should have been expended in these expressions 
when the work for which the Commission was constituted has 
made so little progress. 

The nature of the Commission and the duties required of it, 
were clearly and logically expressed in the first statement of the 
Texas Commission, [B] on the eighth of March, which repeated 
the statement and views of the United States Commission, [A]. 
The Commission was created to execute the law and not to com- 
plain of its injustice. The law of the State of Texas requires 
its Commissioners to mark the corner of the boundary between 
the territory of the United States and Texas, which is defined as 
the point where the true one-hundredth degree of longitude 
crosses Red River, and to place the monument on the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork or the North Fork when the main or principal 
Red River shall have been ascertained as agreed upon in the 
treaty. The United States Commissioners, in conjunction with 
those from Texas, are required to ascertain where the one-hun- 
dredth degree of longitude crosses Red River, and however in- 
teresting it may be to know that the Texas Commissioners think 
the North Fork might have been defined as the boundary in- 
stead of the stream designated in the treaty, we hope that these 
views will not prevent them from considering the subject in the 
light of these laws. 

It might have been more advantageous if a greater or less ter- 
ritory had been assigned to Spain in 1819. Our duty is simply 
to carry out the provision of the law so far as now concerns the 
boundary of Texas. 



— 3 — 

Testimony was introduced to show that the State of Texas long 
since attempted to occupy the doubtful territory witb bands of 
armed men, to defend its boundary with her troops, to locate 
lands upon it and to erect it into a county of the State as soon 
as it was claimed by the United Sta,tes. Far be it from us to 
comment upon any of these acts. If the land belonged to Texas, 
it was right for her to check depredation of the Indians; and if 
it belonged to the United States these inroads afford Texas no 
claims to the land. 

Commissioners Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges [D] say 
that Distumel's first map was used as the basis of the treaty be- 
tween the Republic of Mexico and the United States, in 1828, and 
that his last map, 1846-7, was used as the basis of the treaty be- 
tween the governments in 1848. On these maps the Prairie Dog 
Town Fork was distinctly marked as the Rio Colorado. 

Article 2 of the convention between the United States and 
Texas, 1838, says: 

"Article 2. And it is agreed that until this line shall be 
marked out, as is provided for in the foregoing article, each of the 
contracting parties shall continue to exercise jurisdiction in all 
territory over which its jurisdiction has hitherto been exercised; 
and that the remaining portion of the said boundary line shall 
be run and marked at such time hereafter as may suit the con- 
venience of both of the contracting parties, until which time each 
of the said parties shall exercise, without tlie interference of the 
other, within the territor}^ of which the boundary shall not have 
been so marked and run, jurisdiction to the same extent to 
which it has been heretofore usually exercised." 

In 1879 the Congress of the United States had inadvertently, or 
otherwise, assigned this territory to the Northern Judicial Dis- 
trict of the State under the name assumed b}" Texas. This does 
not appear to have been regarded b} either government as an 
admission of the claim of Texas, for in 1881 (two years later) a 
bill was offered in the House of Representatives, the purport of 
which was, by legislative enactment, to define the boundary as 
the North Fork of Red River. As already explained,, this bill 
was reported adversely by the committee to which it was re- 
ferred, on the ground that if Brown and Jones were right in 
their statement about the relative size of the two forks at the 
crossing of the one-iiundredth meridian, there could be no doubt 
about the true boundar}*, and it was simply because the survey 
referred to had been made without the privity of the State of 
Texas that the appointment of a Joint Commission was recom- 
mended, tliat the State might have a hearing in the matter and 
an opportunity to co-operate witli the United States in survey- 
ing and marking the boundary at the intersection of the true one- 
hundred*"h meridian with the Red River. It was in accordance 
with this suggestion that the Texas Legislature authorized the 
appointment of its Commissioners, who are directed to be guid- 
ed by surveys and measurements, natural and artificial land 
marks, and authenticated maps, and to make surveys and ob- 
serve the relative staire of water in the two forks to ascertain 
which fork is the true Red River. Congress has appointed us to 
co-operate in this work, and not to call in question the validity of 



— 4 — • 

the act. It is not necessary that we should quote from the max- 
ims of international law to know that these acts of Congress and 
of the Legislature of Texas are binding upon us. 

Commissioners Brackenridge, Herndon. Burges and Freeman 
[D] have maintained that the United States is estopped from 
asserting a claim to the territory between the forks, and appear 
to have overlooked the plain language of the law which defines 
the boundary at the North Fork or the Prairie Dog Town Fork, 
whichever is the true Red River. Commissioners Freeman and 
Brackenridge [E], hov/ever, allude to the possibility that it may 
be held by competent authority that the whole question is now 
open as an original investigation, without respect to any such 
estoppel. Moreover, Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge 
and Burges [E] have maintained that the boundary being the 
one-hundredth meridian as laid down in Melish's map is not the 
true one-hundredth meridian, but tha.t it is an irregular and 
perhaps indefinite line lying east of the junction of the forks, 
notwithstanding that they expressly state that the law defines 
it otherwise. On this point Commissioners Herndon, Bracken- 
ridge and Burges [D] explain the fact that Texas has already 
^accepted the one-hundredth meridian north of the North Fork 
as her boundary, and Commissioner Freeman finds that this re- 
port embraces matter inconsistent with the view that the treaty 
meant that the boundary line in question should be the one-hun- 
dredth meridian as laid down on Melish's map, whether the true 
one hundredth meridian or not. We showed that De Onis said 
that Melisli. an uninformed and interested geographer, formed 
his map at pleasure and ran his lines as they were dictated to 
him and thus disposed of the dominion of Spain as suited his 
wishes. Notwithstanding this, Commissioners Freeman and 
Brackenridge [EJ maintain that De Onis preferred a boundary 
line traced over the ground to conform as nearly as possible 
with the rivers and mountains drawn on his map, because it 
would be more stable and better defined than the astronomical 
meridian. With regard to the establishment of this line upon 
the ground. Commissioner Brackenridge [F] says: "Admitting 
the impossibility to accurately locate this line as marked upon 
Melish's map with reference to mountains, streams, bends of 
rivers, etc., so as to conform upon the ground with the division 
of territory as platted upon the map, yet we believe it should be 
done approximately and by mutual concessions if the equities 
of the treaty are to be carried out." 

Commissioners Freeman and Brackenridge [E] say that the 
true meridian as determined by astronomical observations is a 
movable, if not a '• crazy" one. 

It is not necessary to explain the accuracy with which care- 
ful astronomical observations can be made. Commissioners 
Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges [D] state that the determina- 
tion of the one-hundredth degree of longitude may be regarded 
as one of the most accurately established points in and of the 
interior survyed, and we should be sorry to think that John 
Quincy Adams would assent to a boundary of so peculiar a 
character as the crooked meridian above mentioned. Commis- 
sioner Brackenridge [F] in the concluding paragraph of his 



— — 

argument for the claims of Texas appears to have appreciated 
the nature of the law and the duties required of the Commis- 
sion, for he says [F]: " In presenting this argument it is consid- 
ered that it is a new view of the question, neither contemplated 
in the act of the Legislature, nor. in the act of Congress by 
which the Boundary Commission were appointed. It is well un- 
derstood that both these acts may be strictly construed as limit- 
ing the work of the Commission to marking the true one-hun- 
dredth meridian and then to a determination as to which branch 
of Red River was referred to in the treaty of 1819— the North or 
the South Branch. 

"These arguments have, of course, been addressed to this lat- 
ter question, as being the matter under the immediate jurisdic- 
tion of the Commissioners. But it was not deemed improper, in 
the settlement of the question of boundary, to present the view 
of the case as stated in the above proposition. The question at 
issue is as to the ownership of Greer county; while it may be 
established by limiting the argument and investigation as to 
which is the true Red River of the treaty of 1819, it is thought 
that as a collateral argument to settle the question of ownership, 
this second proposition, with a new view of the case, should be 
presented. 

"This explanation is made in order that it may be understood 
that the strict line of work laid out for the Commission by law 
was fully understood, and has been closel}- followed. But it 
was thought that the paramount work was to dt^termine the 
question of ownership of Greer county; and hence this collateral 
argument was prepared, to be considered as strengthening the 
claim of Texas from a new standpoint." 

Although we cannot entertain these pleas against the validity 
of the Commission, we will examine the subject matter and en- 
deavor to extract from it any facts or opinions that may tend to 
elucidate our work. 

We will now consider the evidence in all the papers bearing 
upon our own proposition, and then examine any new matter 
that may have been brought up in any of the other papers. We 
will offer as additional evidence, two maps of the upper Red 
River, from the Texas Land Office, and finally draw our con- 
clusion upon the several issues. 

PROPOSITION. 

The Prairie Dog Town Fork is the boundary designated in the 
treaty, because the branches of Red River were wholly unknown 
to the framers of the treaty and the author of the treaty map. 

Hence the Prairie Dog Town Fork should be regarded as the 
main stream, because it is the main branch, and because it cor- 
responds more closel}' than the other with the boundary as laid 
down on the treaty map. 

The evidence bearing upon this proposition will be reviewed 
in the following order: 

First. As to the knowledge of the upper forks and the region 
in the vicinity, considered chronologically, and, 

Second. As to the physical features of the two forks consid- 
ered absolutely and relatively. 



— 6 — 
I. 

KNOWLEDGE OF THE UPPER FORKS. 

A. Prior to date of the treaty. 

1. Early explorers, 1542, etc. 

2. Fragoso's expedition from New Mexico, 1788. 

3. Humboldt's map of Louisiana and Mexico, and Pike's 
Arkansas, 1806. 

4. Humboldt's New Spain, 1811. 

5. Darby, Bribgier and Melish's book, 1818. 

B. At date of treaty. 

1. Melish's map of 1818. 

2. Adams and De Onis. 

C. After date of treaty. 

1. Melish, 1832. 

2. Long's expedition, 1823. 

3. Kendall, 1841. 

4. Snively and others, 1843. 

5. Marcy, 1849 and 1852. 

6. Since Marcv. 

IL 

1. We stated [C]. 

" The early explorers were lost west of the Mississippi, and 
could not have furnished very definite information to the framers 
of the treaty." 

There appears to be nothing to the contrar}^ in the arguments 
submitted. 

2. We stated, 

"Francisco Xavier Fragoso explored the Prairie Dog Town 
Fork, or main fork, in 1788, but his discoveries were forgotten." 

It seems to be the unanimous opinion that this expedition de- 
scended the Prairie Dog Town Fork from its source, and that the 
name Rio Blanco was then distinctly and definitely applied to 
the river, hoth above and below the mouth of the North Fork, 
which is mentioned as "another river." 

Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges maintain 
that such men as Melish and Bringier must have derived their 
knowledge of this country from Spanish residents on this Rio 
Blanco, or Ke-che-ah-queho-no. 

We stated that 

"Malgares mistook the Canadian for the Red River." 

This has been the opinion of all geographers since the date of 
the treaty. 

Messrs. Freeman. Brackenridge and Burges [G] believe that 
he descended that which is now known as Red River, After 
speaking of settlements on the Kecheaquahono, or Rio Blanco, 
mentioned by Fragoso, which they state were inhabited by Span- 
iards, they sa3^ "has it not been noticed that the Rio Blanco of 
Fragoso still preserves a part of its original name in the map 
Tierra Blanco, White Earth, on all recent maps, applied to its 
head branch? Moreover that this region of the great bend and 
forks of Red River was well known to the Spaniards is very 
evident from the narrative of Lieut. Pike. He expressly says 



— 7 — 

that the Spanish oflScer who intercepted his expedition on the 
head of the Rio Grande, said to him: "Sir, the Governor of New 
Mexico, being informed you had missed your route, ordered me 
to offer you, in his name, mules, horses, money, or whatever 
you may stand in need of, to conduct you to the head of Red 
River ; as from Santa Fe to where it is sometimes navigable is eight 
days' journey, and we have guides and routesof the traders to con- 
ductus." It does not appear that this was spoken of the Canadian 
river, as the United States Commission seem to suppose; for that 
river, as shown by recent maps, was within close proximity lo 
Santa Fe, and not over two or three days' journey therefrom. 
We may be allowed to inquire why the Commission on the part 
of the United States say of. Malgares, whose expedition was 
sent down Red Rivt r in 1806 from Santa Fe, "he descended the 
Canadian, which he mistook for the Red River, and then crossed 
over to Arkansas." "We are compelled to think the mistake 
arises with the Commissioners of the United States, for Pike, 
from whom we derive all the knowledge on the subject, gives 
the following account": * * * 

They say our assertion "seems to have no other foundation than 
the fact that Pike supposed, as Humboldt did, that a tributary 
of the Canadian ran into Red River, and so mapped it. The 
logic would seem to be that Malgares made a mistake about de- 
scending Red River, because Pike did not know its source." 

It will be observed from Pike's account of the expedition of 
Malgares that he descended the Red River, i. e., the Rio 
Rojo or Canadian, and met the bands of the Tetaus, who, as 
Pike shows, extended as far north as the Arkansas; that he then 
struck off to the northeast and crossed the country to the Ar- 
kansas, where Lieut. Pike found his trail distinctly marked, and 
so indicated on his map. Pike was told that from Santa Fe 
to the point where the river was sometimes navigable was 
eight days' journey, and there is no reason to suppose that 
the navigable rivers of the Canadian were any nearer. It 
will be observed that Fragoso marched nine days before 
striking the headwaters of the Prairie Dog Town river; 
the headwaters of the North Fork were at least six days' 
journey further from Santa Fe, and from this point to where it 
is sometimes navigable could not be less than twenty-five days' 
march. 

With regard to the Spaniards who were reported as having 
been on the Sabine, it will be remembered that Major Sparks 
and Mr. Freeman were intercepted by the Spanish parties from 
Nacogdoches under the command of Capt. Vianna; it was there- 
fore unnecessary for Malgares to attempt to penetrate that coun- 
try. 

We sa}' that 

"Humboldt delineates the course of the Red River to conform 
to geographical theories based on a wrong assumption of the 
position of its source, and saysthatthe country was unexplored." 

It is not necessary to repeat what Humboldt said about the 
theories of geographies; it will be remembered that the words 
were quoted from his own writings and those of other geograph- 
ers who reviews his works. He also says (Vol. 1, page 81, line 



— 8 — 

25): "As to countries coterminus with new Spain, we have used 
for Louisiana the fine map of the Engineer Lafond." Of this 
map Darby says (Page 84): "Aglance at Lafon's mapof Louis- 
isiana. published in 1805, will enable any person acquainted with 
the real features of the country to understand how utterly the 
country upon the Red and Ouachita Rivers were unknown at the 
epoch of the publication of the foregoing map." The most that 
can possibly be claimed for Humboldt's knowledge of Red River 
is, that the general direction was from the west, but as he thought 
the sources were in the neighborhood of Santa Fe, he perhaps 
shaped its upper course to correspond with this view. 

There may, in early times, have been "ranchos" or "stations 
de muletiers" along the banks of Red River, but they extended 
only to the country of the Taouaizes, who lived far below the 
forks of the river, and the name Quichicans, applied to the most 
eastern of these stations, is the exact French equivalent of 
Kechequahono. and it is quite probable that this was the Indian 
name of the Red River. If Malgares, in 1806, had known the 
true course of Red River, it is improbable that Humboldt, who 
was collecting information for the Spanish government, should 
have said in 1811, that it is thought in New Mexico that the Rio 
de Pecos is the same as the Red River of Natchitoches. How 
could Mr. Melisli derive an accurate knowledge of the geograph- 
ical position of the North Fork of Red River through the explora- 
tions of Malgares? And if he did so, how could he make such a 
faulty reprosentation on his map? 

We said : 

"Pike knows nothing of the country and never visited it." 

"Darby says it was unknown except in its lower course." 

Bringiers map was never published, but Melish said it extend- 
ed west to the twenty-third degree. It is upon this unpublished 
map that Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges 
[E] base their idea of Melish's accurate knowledge of the coun- 
try. They give their views about the enterprise of a Bringier 
and a Melish and of the expedients resorted to by Mr. Bringier 
when arriving at the one-hundredth meridian, which was the 
limit of his map, sending out hunters and trappers of Santa Fe 
and St. Louis who were ranging those countries, to bring him 
back accurate information about the forks of that river, which 
on Melish's map are located about loO miles out of their true po- 
sition. 

"Melish says he derived his knowledge from Humboldt, Pike 
and Darby, and in 18--i2 sa^^s that the country has not yet been 
explored," etc. 

"De Onis complains that Melish was totally uninformed about 
this region." 

We have already shown that Darby and Melish distinctly 
state that the Red River had never been explored. 

We fail to see the exact correspondences which Commission- 
ers Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges [G] find between Melish's 
representation of the forks of Red River and their true position 
as laid down on modern maps. The only resemblance that we 
find is that the river forks somewhere in its upper course, and 
that the southern fork is much larger and longer tlian the north- 



— 9 — 

€rn, and is therefore connected with the imaginary sources in 
the neighborhood of Santa Fe. We have not seen a map that 
represents forks on the upper Red River that does not make the 
southern fork wider and longer. 

Dr. James, author of the account of Long's expeoition, says 
"that the river was unknown, except in its lower course." 
Writing in 1823, he sa5^s: "Several persons have recently ar- 
rived in St. Louis, Mo., from Santa Fe, and among others, the 
brother of Captain Shreeves who gives information of a large 
and frequented road that runs nearly due east from that place 
and strikes one of the branches of the Canadian, that a consid- 
erable distance to the south of this point in the high plains is 
the principal source of Red River." He further says: "From a 
a careful comparison of all the evidence we have been able to 
collect, we are satisfied that the stream upon which we en- 
camped the thirty-first of August is the river Raijo of Humboldt, 
long mistaken for the Red River of Natchitoches, etc. In a region 
of red clay and sand where all the streams have nearly the 
color of arterial blood it is not surprising that several rivers 
should have the same name." 

It is easy to see how the Mexicans who followed along the 
Canadian river to trade with the Comanches could make this 
mistake, but Commissioner Brackenridge [F] thinks that this 
road extended down the Red River to Natchitoches; that it left 
the Canadian near the Antelope Hills and struck the North Fork 
of the Red River above the Wichita mountains. A traveler 
who followed this road could hardly mistake the little stream on 
his right for the great river on his left i^hat he had been follow- 
ing from Santa Fe, 3'et this is the only possible supposition of 
those who maintain that Melish's map was constructed from in- 
formation derived from travelers along the old Spanish road. 

General Marcy vsays this is the identical road along which he 
conducted emigrants from Fort Smith to Santa Fe in 18^:9; that 
it followed along the divide between the Wichita and the Cana- 
dian rivers. This road is delineated on Carey & Lea's map of 
1822 and Melish's map of 1823, extending as far as the mouth of 
the Wichita. The trail observed by General Marcy along the 
east bank of the North Fork of Red River was an old Comanche 
trail through a narrow defile in the mountains which led up 
through a very tortuous rocky gorge where the well-worn path 
indicated that it had been traveled many years. 

It is hardly necessary for anyone familiar with a Comanche 
trail to call attention to the difference between such a path and 
a road indicated by Mexican cart tracks, to which General 
Marcy alluded. This Spanish road is represented as crossing 
the false Wichita in its middle course and then following along 
between the false Wichita and the Red River to the neighbor- 
hood of their junction. 

If this road skirted along the North Fork of Red River and 
followed it down to Natchitoches it could hardly have been there 
at the time of Fragoso, in 1788. for he would surel}- have discov- 
ered it or his guides would have pointed it out to him. 

If the great Spanish road is correctly laid down on Carey & 
Lea's map of 1822, and Melish's map of 1823, and if the little 



— 10 — 

stream along which it runs after crossing the false Wichita is 
intended to represent the North Fork of Red River, it follows 
that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is correctly delineated as the 
main Red River. 

We have no knowledge of the existence of the Spanish road 
except along the divide immediately south of the Canadian 
river. Melish knew nothing about it. 

The road which General Marcy followed along the divide be- 
tween the Canadian on the north and the Red River and false 
Wichita on the south, passes nearer to the sources of the Keche- 
quahono than to those of the North Fork, and the location of 
the sources of Red River by the brother of Captain Shreeves 
above quoted coincide with the position of the headwaters of 
the Quicheaquehono. 

Upon the map of Carey & Lea, 1822, and Melish, 1823, of Em- 
ory in 1844 and of Distumel in 1847 and all other maps pub- 
lished from the date of the treat}^ up to 1852, the Prairie Dog 
Town Fork is distinctively delineated as the main Red River 
and the North Fork which is unnamed is represented as a little 
stream and nearly in its true position. 

On Distumel's map, published in Spain in 1848, compiled from 
the best authorities and laws of Mexico, and which was used by 
the Mexican Boundary Commission in surveying the boundary 
between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, the Prai- 
rie Dog Town Fork is indicated as the main stream and is called 
the Rio Colorado. The North Fork is unnamed and represented 
as an insignificant tributary, the position of the Wichita moun- 
tains defines it beyond a doubt. 

If this road skirted along the North Fork, and if Melish's map 
were constructed from the reports of those who had traveled 
this road, and if the mountains referred to by Commissioner 
Freeman, etc., were indeed in the Wichita mountains and not 
simply a representation of the water-shed, the conclusion is irre- 
sistable that the stream next the mountains represented the 
North Fork and that they knew that the South Fork was wider 
and longer and this was therefore connected with the imaginary 
sources near Santa Fe to complete the picture. 

Commissioners Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges [DJ pro- 
duce evidence to show that a detachment from Captain East- 
on's expedition, in 1837, crossed the Prairie Dog Town Fork to 
attack certain Indian villages on a stream which is supposed to 
be the North Fork of Red River, and also that the Santa Fe 
expedition, authorized by the President ot' the Republic of Texas 
in 1841, traversed the region known as Greer county. With 
regard to this expedition. General Marcy says, page 58, "A gen- 
tleman who is traveling with us, and who was attached as a 
Captain to Colonel McLeod's expedition to Santa Fe, so graph- 
ically described by Mr. Kendall, recognized a point, near the 
head of the river, when his command passed. He is of the 
opinion that the river which they ascended, and supposed at the 
time to be the principal branch of Red River, must have been 
the Big Wischita, and they probably passed entirely to the south 
of the main branch of the river. The fact that they were for a 
long time upon the plains of the " Llano Estacado" would go to 



— 11 — 

■confirm this supposition, as anywhere to the north of this 
stream they would not have encountered much of it." 

The report of the Pacific Railway Survey, Vol, XI, 1861, in 
describing' this expedition, says: "This expedition left Austin, 
the capital of Texas, on the twenty -first of June, 1841." "The 
whole party was under the command of General McLeod. 
Leaving Austin, they traveled north, crossed the Brazos at the 
Cross Timbers, and thence turning westward struck the Big 
Wichita, which they thought was Red River. They entered 
upon the Llano Estacado at the head of the Red (main) River. 
The party was then divided into two portions — the one under 
Colonel Cook proceeding rapidly in advance and General McLeod 
following more slowly with the main train. The pioneers of the 
advance guard traveled northwest, and struck the Canadian at 
the Arroyo de Truxillo; thence they followed upon the valley to 
the Santa Fe and Independence road, which led them to Auton 
Chigo. Some Mexicans were sent back as guides to Colonel 
Cook, and he was led by the way of Trucuncari Hill, along the 
road generally pursued by emigrants, near the Canadian river, 
to New Mexico." 

Kendall in his narrative, page 198, says that these guides were 
unacquainted vv^ith the American name of Red River, 

Snively's expedition in 1843. seems to have been agressive in 
its nature. It is not improbable that he passed through Greer 
county, and found Indians there who called the North Fork Red 
River. We have already seen that many streams in that neigh- 
borhood were so called, nor is it improbable that Snively encour- 
aged them in calling it so. It is well known to all who are 
acquainted with the habits of Indian guides that they are very 
quick to learn what is expected of them. It appears also that 
his guides were well posted in the terms of the treaty of 1819, 
and by wonderful astronomical instinct, determined with great 
accuracy the point where the one-hundredth meridian crossed 
the North Fork of Red River. It is not necessary to make any 
further allusion to Marcy's expedition, excepting that as he has 
been quoted to prove that the Indians called the North Fork 
Red River, it may be necessary to allude to the following, which 
has already been put in evidence: 

"Dr. Gregg, in his Commerce of the Prairies, tells us that on 
his way down the south bank of the Canadian, his Comanche 
guide, Manuch. who, by the way, traveled six hundred miles 
with me upon the plains, and whom I always found reliable, 
pointed out to him breaks or bluffs upon a stream to the south 
of the Canadian, near what we ascertained to be the true posi- 
tion of the head of the north branch of Red River, and where it 
approaches within twenty -five miles of the Canadian. These 
bluffs, he said, were upon the 'Rio Negro,' which the doctor sup- 
posed to be the Washita river; but after having examined that 
section of the country, I am satisfied that the north branch of 
Red River must have been alluded to by my guide, as the Wash- 
ita rises further to the east. It therefore seems probable that 
'Rio Negro' is the name which the Mexicans have applied to 
Red River of Louisiana." 



— 12 — 

PHYSICAL FEATURES. 

Let US now consider the physical features of the two forks in 
their bearing on the question, in the light of the evidence that 
has been produced, and of the opinions that have been expressed. 

In our original presentation of the case, March 4, we said that 
all the conditions appeared to us to be best satisfied by the 
Prairie Dog Town ^ork, and gave our reasons for holding this 
opinion, viz. : 

1. It is a longer stream; its source is further from its mouth and 
from the junction of the two forks, and it probably affords a 
greater development. 

2. It is wider and deeper at its intersection with the 100th me- 
ridian, and contains more water, 

3. It drains a larger area. 

4. It appears to be wider and deeper. 

5. It appears throughout the year to contribute more water to 
the stream below. 

Commissioners Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges quote from 
one who sa3's, "in a straight line, the South Fork rises farther 
west, but take the tortuous channf^l of the North Fork and it 
measures as great, if not a greater distance. We have already 
shown that by the best maps in our possession the Prairie Dog 
Town Fork is much larger even in its meanderings than the 
North Fork, and the map of Randall and Deaf Smith county cer- 
tified to by the Commissioners of the Land office of the State of 
Texas, agrees with the results of government surveys and shows 
the meanderings of the Prairie Dog Town Fork much farther to 
the west. It is true that about the one hundred and third degree 
of longitude it is dry, excepting in the rainy season, but so are 
all rivers in this region, and so is the North Fork at its intersec- 
tion with the one-hundredth meridian as already explained. 

Commissioners Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges [D] say 
that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is much larger and longer. 

2. All agree that it is wider and deeper at its intersection with 
the one-hundredth meridian. 

3. It drains a larger area. 

Upon this point there is no question. The map furnished by 
the Texas Land Office shows that the area drained by the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork is much greater than we stated in our first 
paper. 

It is universally agreed that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is 
wider. 

With regard to its depth there is some doubt, from the fact 
that its bed is of such a nature that the main body of water is 
often below the surface. 

5. We have seen that General Marcy said: "The Prairie Dog 
Town Fork afforded an equal quantity of water to the river be- 
low; and elsewhere "as sandy earth absorbed a good deal of the 
water after it debouched from the canon through which it flows. 
It may not contribute any more water to the lower river than 
the North Fork." 

Commissioners Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges fD] say: 



— 13 — 

"As to the volume of water and constancy of flow, neither the 
North or the South Fork is to be compared with the Washita. 

"Neither the North or the South Fork is navigable at all, ex- 
cept in rainy seasons, while the Washita is navigable at all 
times by light draft boats." 

The rivers of northern and western Texas disregard the law 
of continuity and often flow along in a large stream for some 
distance suddenly disappear and then rise again and flow along 
as before. 

The Rio Grande, which forms the Mexican boundary, is often 
completely dry when the little rivulets empty it are flowing with 
a respectable stream of water, but no one would ever mistake 
one of the rivulets for the great river or claim it as the Mexican 
boundary. 

It is a well known principle of river guaging that to determine 
the flow of water, some point must be selected where the bed is 
not sandy or stony, but when two streams lie side by side like 
these little forks, the one that drains the greater area must nec- 
essarily contain the greater quantity of water throughout the 
year. 

RELATIVE. 

With regard to the relative position of the North and Prairie 
Dog Town Forks as compared with the streams laid down on 
Melish's map, we stated: 

1. It corresponds more nearly in position with the Red River 
as laid down on Melish's map. 

2. It corresponds more nearly in direction with the Red River 
as laid down on Melish's map, at its intersection with the one- 
hundredth meridian west from London. 

0. It corresponds more nearly in direction with the main 
course of the Red River than the North Fork. 

We have nothing to add to these statements excepting that 
Commissioners Herndon, Bracken ridge and Burges [DJ call 
attention to the fact that the treaty requires that the Red River 
be followed westward to the one-hundredth meridian, and we 
think that this makes it more improbable that the North Fork 
could be taken for the main branch. 

Besides the points brought out in our paper, the following 
have been presented: 

1. The color of the North Fork. 

2. The fact that the North Fork was called Red River. 

3. The question of equity. 

Comriiissioners Herndon, Brackenridge and Burges [DJ, who 
attach much importance to the fact that the Indians, hunters, 
etc., in 1843, 1858, etc., called the North Fork Red River, and 
ask us what it was called before this time — they say if not Red 
River, what was it? Give us its name. 

This appears to be a somewhat difficult problem. If we were 
asked the same question about Caciie creek we might be puzzled. 
On all the maps that represent the Spanish road the North Fork 
is not named, but the Prairie Dog Town Fork is named Red 
River. But we will recapitulate what has been said on this 
point. 



— u — 

First. Fragoso called the main fork and the main river the 
Rio Blanco, and the North Fork he speaks of as "another river." 
Commissioners Freeman and Brackenridge [EJ say that this 
was the well-known Spanish name for the stream. 

Second. Humboldt shows but one stream to which he gives 
the name Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, but the Indian name is ex- 
pressed in that of the Ranchos de Muletiers Quichicans, far be- 
low the forks. This term, Quichicans, is the phonetic equiva- 
lent of Kechequehono, not prairie dog, but Prairie Dog Town 
River — probably the name applied by the Indians to the river 
in their country until they were taught to call it by the treaty 
name. 

On Melish's map we do not think either fork was represented. 
If the forks are shown, the North Fork is unnamed and the 
Prairie Dog Town Fork is called Rio Rojo. 

In 184:1 the guide did not know the American name of Red 
River or uf the Big Wichita. 

In 1843 and 1849 the North Fork was called Red River, and the 
South, Queehiquahono, by some of the Indians, but by the Mex- 
icans, General Marcy thinks the North Fork was called "Rio 
Negro.'' 

Since 1849 this stream has been known as the North Fork of 
Red River, and the South Fork as the Kechequahono or main 
Red River. 

Doubtless each Indian tribe has its own name for the several 
rivers called by the Mexicans Rio Blanco, Rio Negro, etc. 

It is claimed that we should regard the North Fork as Red 
River because the waters are red in color, whereas those of the 
Prairie Dog Town Fork are clear or white. It has already been 
shown that the Canadian, the Big Wichita, the Brazos and 
many others have the same color, and we quoted Dr. James, 
who says: "In a region of red clay and sand where all the 
streams' have the color of arterial blood it is not surprising that 
several rivers should have the same name." The river below 
sometimes takes its color from the waters of one fork and some- 
times from those of the other, and Fragoso named the main 
stream Rio Blanco. Others have called the North Fork the Rio 
Negro, but it is very clear that the river was not selected as a 
boundary line on account of its red color. All the streams are 
clear at their sources, and surely it is not maintained that the 
name is applicable only as far as the clay beds. The treaty 
river is called the Red River of Natchitoches, and it would be 
as inconsistent to reject the North Fork on account of its greater 
distance from that town at the one-hundredth meridian as to 
reject the Prairie Dog Town Fork. 

Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges [G] com- 
plain that we did not answer the letter of Governor Ireland. 
We have only to say that they have overlooked our first paper 
of March 4. The Governor repeatedly asked to have the clause 
as laid down on Melish's map inserted in the instructions to the 
United States commissioners, a suggestion which the President 
declined to adopt. We explained at full length that Governor 
Ireland had distinctly stated that the map was not a true repre- 
sentation of the river, and that the true meridian was stable. 



— 15 — 

As we had accepted these assertions we could not coincide with 
the other to ihe following effect, viz: That the known and stable 
must be made to conform to the unknown and imaginary. We 
thought it more considerate to Governor Ireland not to quote 
the clause about the movable meridian, but this did not prevent 
us from fully investigating the subject, although according to 
the rules of procedure we were then required to set forth only 
the issues on the part of the United States. 

The Texas Commissioners did not present this issue in their 
reply [B], but reserved a right to do so, and it was not until the 
evidence had been reviewed in our paper [C] and theirs [Dj that 
an additional argument [E] was introduced relative to a mov- 
able meridian. 

We have declined to admit that this discussion can have any 
bearing on the question before us, but we are willing to consider 
whether in equity she has been the sufferer from the interpreta- 
tion put upon the treaty by Congress and the Legislature of 
Texas. Commissioner Brackenridge [Fj says the*question was 
one of acreage and the problem was to divide the land between 
the Mississippi and the Rio Grande. A glance at the red and 
black map presented in evidence with our first paper and our re- 
marks in explanation thereof, furnish the necessary answer to 
this question. 

Commissioners Freeman and Brackenridge [G] object to our 
construction of this map and propose to substitute for it a red 
and blue map, and we invite the attention of the Joint Commis- 
sion to a comparison of these two maps. [Further remark is 
superflous]. Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges 
[GJ say that they believe we have made as the basis of compari- 
son some point on the lower Red River. We have sufficiently ex- 
plained that Meiish's map has not been altered. The projection 
is his, the parallels and meridians are his, and not theoretical 
lines, but the lines we are required by law to consider in defining 
the boundary. It would have been impossible for us to tell with- 
out explanation in what part of the imaginary courses of Red 
River Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges [G] 
thought the}- detected a resemblance to the junction of the North 
and Prairie Dog Town Forks: but this red and blue map being 
constructed on erroneous principles of superposition, cannot be 
given any weight in our consideration of the matter at issue. . 

The black lines representing the true features of the country 
are certainly platted accoi'ding to latitude and longitude, in Me- 
iish's projection. The black map is correct so far as a pen can 
make it. The red map is incorrect, and the only way to com- 
pare them is by superposition. The result is that in all those 
countries that we know to be correctly delineated in Meiish's 
map, the two coincide. In the neighborhood of the Rio Grande 
and the Mississippi, which limited the disputed territory, the 
coincidence is as perfect as possible, and each can draw his own 
conclusion. The black lines show where the rivers are, the red 
lines show where Melish placed them. 

We will now consider this review of the evidence in its bear- 
ing upon our proposition. 

1. The historical evidence. 



— 16 — 

Does it show which fork was known to the framers of the 
treaty, and which was laid down on the treaty map? 

1. Fragoso, in 1788, descended the Prairie Dog Town Fork and 
main Red River, and Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge 
and Burges [G] believe that the framers of the treaty knew of 
the Rio de las Plumas and other points on the Prairie Dog Town 
Fork. The United States Commissioners are not sure of this. 

2. Humboldt delineates but one stream with a few "stations 
de muletiers'' upon it. These stations, however, extend only as 
far as the country of the Taouaizes, who lived in the vicinity of 
the Cross Timbers, and far below the junction of the forks. 
The course of the river is drawn with the view that it is the 
same as the Pecos, and rises near Santa Fe. Humboldt's deline- 
ation, copied from Lafond, was erased by Melish to make it cor- 
respond with that of Darby and Bringier, who gave a different 
direction to its middle course, but maintain the source near 
Santa Fe. 

We repeat that both Darby and Melish say the countr}^ was 
unknown. 

We do not know how Melish, in Philadelphia, could learn more 
about Malgares than Humboldt and Pike in Mexico, and adhere 
to the opinion that he descended the Canadian, and gave no use- 
ful information to the treaty makers of the country about the 
forks of Red River. The Spanish road was unknown to the 
treaty makers and to Melish in 1818, and when, in 1820, it was 
discovered south of the Canadian and represented on the maps 
as extending to Red River, the South Fork is represented as the 
Red River and the North Fork as an insignificant stream, which 
appears to show that anyone descending this road would recog- 
nize the main stream on reaching the forks. If this road ever 
extended from Santa Fe to Natchitoches, no one who followed it 
throughout could mistake the Canadian for the North Fork of 
Red River. 

1857 the Kecheaquahono was as well known as the North Fork. 

In 1841 the Santa Fe ex;^edition struck the Prairie Dog Town 
Fork near its source, but did not go near the North Fork. 

In 1843 both streams were known to the Texans. 

The Prairie Dog Town river is shown as the main river on all 
maps from 1822 to 1852. In 1852 Marcy disvovered that the 
Prairie Dog Town Fork was longer and larger and called it the 
main Red River. 

We have shown that from its physical features the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork is entitled to be regarded as the main stream 
and that it coincided more nearly with the river as laid down in 
the map. but if the point identified as the junction of the Forks 
by Commissioners Freeman, Brackenridge and Burges [G] repre- 
sents the junction, then the conclusion is irresi stable that the 
Prairie Dog Town Fork is laid down as the Red River. 

CONCLUSION. 

It is maintained by the Commission on the part of Texas, that 
the North Fork is the main Red River of the treaty, because 
this stream was at that time well known to the framers thereof, 



— 17 — 

while the Prairie Dog Town Fork was wholly unknown. We, 
on the contrary have shown that nothing was known of either 
of these streams at the time alluded to, and that for this reason 
the physical features of the question must be our only criterion 
in a true interpretation of the treaty; hence, as the South or 
Prairie Dog Town Fork is known to be the longer, larger and 
more important stream, draining the larger area and corres- 
ponding more nearly to the terms of the treaty river, as laid 
down in Melish's map. We are of the opinion that this should 
be considered the true Red River of the treaty. 

[Signed], S. M. Mansfield, 

Maj. of Engineers. 
[Signed], W. R. Livermore, 

Maj. of Engineers. 
[Signed], Thos. L. Casey, 

First Lieut, of Engineers. 
[Signed], Lansing H. Beach, 

First Lieut, of Engineers. 



Record of I he Pi^occedings of the Joint CouDiiission appointed 
on the part of the United States and the State of Texas to 
establish and mark the Boundary Line between the United 
States and the State of l^exas. 

FIRST JOINT MEETING AT GALVESTON, TEXAS. 

Tuesday, February 23, 1886. 
The Commissions met at 10:;?U a. m., and were called to order by Col. 
Mansfield. 

Present: On behalf of the United States, Maj. S. M. Mansfield, Bv't. 
Lieut.-Col., U. S. A.; Maj. W. R. Livermore, 1st Lieut. Thos. L. Casey 
and 1st Lieut. Lansing H. Beach, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A.: and on be- 
half of the State of Texas, Messrs. J. T. Brackenridge, W. S. Herndon, G. 
R. Freeman, and W. H. Burgess. 

After some discussion it was decided that each Commission was a unit in 
itself, and it was agreed that the two chairmen be empowered to draw up 
and adopt rules of procedure to govern all meetings of the Commissions. 
Adjourned at 11:30 a. m. subject to the call of the chairmen. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Sectretary. 



Thursday, February 25, 1886. 

The Commissions met at 11:10 a. m., pursuant to the call of the chairmen. 

Present: All the members of both commissions. 

Col. Mansfield then presented the credentials of the members of the Com- 
mission on the part of the United States by reading the following Act of 
Congress and ordei's of the President, viz: 

"Chapter 47. — An Act to authorize the appointment of a commission by 
the President of the United States to run and mark the boundary lines 
between a portion of the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in 
connection with a similar commission to be appointed by the State of 
Texas. 

" Whereas, The treaty between the United States and Spain, executed 
February twenty-second, eighteen hundred and nineteen, fixed the boundary 
line between the two countries west of the Mississippi River as follows: 
Beginning on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Sabine Riv'er, in the 
sea, and continuing north along the western bank of the river to the thirty- 
second degree of latitude; thence by a line due north to the degree of lati- 
tude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches or Red River; thence 
following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the one hundredth de- 
gree of longitude west from London and the twenty-third from Washington; 
thence crossing the said Red River and running thence by a line due north 



— 2 — 

to the river Arkansas; thence following the course of the southern bank 
of the Arkansas to its source in latitude forty-two degrees north; and thence 
by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea; the whole being as laid down 
in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved 
to the first of January, eighteen hundred and eighteen; and, 

" Whereas, A controversy exists between the United States and Texas as 
to the point where the one hundredth degree of longitude crosses the Red 
River as described in the treaty; and, 

" Whereas, The point of crossing has never been ascertained and fixed by 
any authority competent to bind the United States and Texas; and, 

"Whereas, It is desirable that a settlement of this controversy should be 
had, to the end that the question of boundary now in dispute, because of a 
difference of opinion as to said crossing, may also be settled; therefore. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, 
and is hereby, authorized to detail one or more officers of the Army, who, 
in conjunction with such person or persons as may be appointed by the 
State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth 
meridian of longitude crosses Red River, in accordance with the terms of 
the treaty aforesaid, and the person or persons appointed by virtue of this 
act shall make report of his or their action in the premises to the Secretary 
of the Interior, who shall transmit the same to Congress at the next session 
thereof after such report may be made, for action by Congress. 

" Sec. 2. That the sum of ten thousand dollars, or so much thereof as 
may be necessary, to be expended under the direction of the War Depart- 
ment, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay the expenses of the United 
States in carrying out the provisions of this act. 

"Approved, January 31st, 1885.'' 

"War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, ) 
"Washington, September 24. 1885. \ 

" The following order of the President is published for the information 
of all concerned: 

"Executive Mansion, Wasiiingtion, September 23, 1885. 
" Under a provision of an act of Congress entitled 'An Act to authorize 
the appointment of a commission by the President of the United States to 
run and mark the boundary lines between a portion of the Indian Territory 
and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar commission to be ap- 
pointed by the State of Texas,' the following officers of the Army are de- 
tailed, in obedience to the provisions of the act of Congress, to act in con- 
junction with such persons as have been appointed by the State of Texas, 
to ascertain and mark the point where the 100th meridian of longitude 
crosses the Red River: 

"Major W. R. Livermore, Corps of Engineers. 

" 1st Lieutenant Thomas L. Casey, jr., Corps of Engineers. 

" 1st Lieutenant Lansing H. Beach, Corps of Engineers. 

"GROVER CLEVELAND. 
" By order of the Secretary of War: 

" R. C. Drum, 
"Adjutant-General. 
"Official: 
(Signed) "Wm. J. Volkmar, 

"Assistant Adjutant-General." 



— 3 — 

"War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, ) 
"Washington, October 26, 1885. ^' 

" The following order of the President is published for the information 
of all concerned : 

"Executive Mansion, Washington, October 24, 1885. 
"Under a provision of an act of Congress entitled 'An Act to authorize 
the appointment of a commission by the President of the United States to 
run and mark the boundary lines between a portion of the Indian Territory 
and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar commission to be ap- 
pointed by the State of Texas, Major S. M. Mansfield^ Cor{)s of Engineers, 
is detailed, in addition to those officers named in Executive Order dated 
September 23, 1885, in obedience to the provisions of said act of Congress, 
to act in conjunction with such persons as have been appointed by the 
State of Texas, to ascertain and mark the pomt where the 100th meridian 
of longitude crosses the Red River. 

"GROVER CLEVELAND. 
" By order of the Secretary of War: 

"R. G. Drum, 
"7\ djutant-General. 
"Official: 
(Signed) "J. C. Kelton, 

"Assistant Adjutant-General." 

Mr. Brackenridge then presented the credentials of the members of the 
Commission on the part of the State of Texas, reading the act of the Texas 
Legislature, as follows, to wit: 

"Chapter XI. — An Act to provide for running and marking the boundary 
line between the State of Texas and the territory of the United States, 
from the northeast corner of said State to the degree of longitude one 
hundred west from London and twenty-three degrees west from Wash- 
ington, as said line is described in the treaty between the United States 
and Spain, of February 22, 1819, and for the payment of the expenses of 
such survey. 

" Section 1. Be it enacted hy the Legislature of the State of Texas, That the 
Governor of this State be and is hereby authorized and em})owered to ap- 
point a suitable person or persons, who, in conjunction with such person or 
persons as may be appointed by or on behalf of the United States for the 
same purpose, shall run and mark the boundary lines between the territories 
of the United States and the State of Texas, as follows: Beginning at a 
point where a line drawn north from the intersection of the thirty-second 
degree of north latitude with the western bank of the Sabine River crosses 
Red River, and thence following the course of said river westwardly to the 
degree of longitude one hundred west from London and twenty-three de- 
grees west from Washington, as said line was laid down in Melish's map of 
the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of Janu- 
ary, 1818, and designated in the treaty between the United States and 
Spain, made February 22, A. D. 1819. 

"Sec. 2. Said joint commission will report their survey, made in ac- 
cordance with the foregoing section of this act, togetlier with all necessary 
notes, maps, and other papers, in order that in lixing that part of the boun- 
dary between the Territories of the LTnited States and the State of Texas 
the question may be definitely settled as to the true location of the one 



— 4 — 

hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and whether the North 
Fork of Red River or the Prairie Dog Fork of said river is the true Red 
River designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, made 
on February 22, 1819; and in locating said lines said Commissioners shall 
be guided by actual surveys and measurements, together with such well 
established marks, natural and artificial, as may be found, and such well 
authenticated maps as may throw light on the subject. 

" Sec. 3. Such Commissioner or Commissioners on the part of Texas 
shall attempt to have said siirvey herein provided for by the Joint Com- 
mission made and performed between the first day of July and the first day 
of October of the year in which said survey is made, when the ordinary 
stage of water in each fork of said Red River may be observed; and when 
the main or principal Red River is ascertained as agreed upon in said treaty 
of 1819, and the point is fully designated where the one hundredth degree 
of longitude west from London and twenty-third degree of longitude 
west from Washington crosses said Red River, the same shall be plainly 
marked and defined as a corner in said boundary, and said Commission 
shall establish such other permanent monuments as may be necessary to 
mark their work 

"Sec. 4. That the sum of ten thousand dollars, or so much thereof as 
may be necessary, be and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money m 
the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the provisions of this 
act; provided^ that the Commissioner or Commissioners on the part of 
Texas shall act, in making such sui'vey, under instructions from the Gov- 
ernor of the State, and shall receive for their services such sum or sums of 
money as the Gi-overnor may offer to pay, not to exceed the sum of three 
thousand dollars each; and provided further^ that the person or persons to 
be appointed and employed by the United States are not to be paid by the 
State of Texas. 

"Sec. 5. The facts that the settlement of the boundary of that portion 
of the State of Texas embracing Greer county will involve important public 
as well as private interests which should be immediately settled, and that 
the present session is confined to thirty days, creates an imperative public 
necessity that the constitutional rule requiring that bills shall be read on three 
several days be suspended, and an emergency that this act take effect and 
be in force from and after its passage, and it is so enacted. 

"Approved May 2, A. D. 1882. 

" Takes effect from passage." 

The Commissioners on the part of the State of Texas then severally pre- 
sented their commissions from the Governor of the State. 

The rules of procedure agreed upon and adopted by the two chairmen 
were then read, as follows, to- wit: 

" 1st. The senior member of the Commission appointed by the President 
of the United States, and the chairman of the Commission appointed by the 
State of Texas, shall conjointly preside over all meetings of the Joint Com- 
mission. 

"2nd. A member of either Commission desiring to address the Joint 
Commission, or to make a motion, shall apply to the chairman of the Com- 
mission of which he is a member. 

"3rd. The chairmen may adopt such additional rules for the conduct 
and dispatch of business as may be from time to time deemed necessary. 



— 5 — 

"4th. The meetings of the Joint Commission will be held at such time 
and place as may, from day to day, be agreed upon by both chairmen, and 
no meeting of the Joint Commission shall take place without such agree- 
ment, nor excepting between the hours of 10 a. m. and 3 p. m. If the two 
chairmen fail to agree upon a time and place of meeting, being a difficulty 
inherent in the nature of the Commission, it then becomes the duty of each 
chairman to report the result to the appointing power for instructions. 

"5th. A motion to adjourn takes precedence of all other motions, and 
is made by any member to his own chairman. 

" 6th. That the junior member of the U. >S. Commission be required to 
keep the record of the Joint Commission, and each Commission, for its 
own convenience, may designate one of its members to act as its secretary. 

" 7th. No person not a member of the Joint Commission will be allowed 
to attend its meetings, except such as the two chairmen may agree to admit 
for the purpose of giving evidence, or when invited by the Joint Commis- 
sion. 

"8th. In order to facilitate the proceedings of the Commission, every 
motion, except for adjournment, will be reduced to writing by the member 
who makes it. 

" 9th. Arguments shall not be reduced to writing as part of the record. 

" loth. All evidence decided to be relevant to the issues investigated, 
shall be reduced to writing. 

"llth. Oral testimony shall be taken down in the form of narrative, 
and signed by the witness. 

"I'ith. Any member of the Commission may offer documentary evi- 
dence relevant to the issues investigated, such as maps, charts, surveys, 
sketches, acts of either government, reports of heads of government or 
departments and committees, and the same may be filed as a part of the 
record." 

Mr. Herndon then presented the following resolution: 

"That the affirmative of the issues in controversy is conceded to the 
United States, and the Committee on the part of the United States shall 
have the opening and conclusion in presenting evidence and argument, and 
may offer all needful evidence in support of such issue or issues as may be 
formulated, and the State of Texas shall then offer all needful evidence 
and argument in support of its side of the issues as presented, and in case 
either party shall call a witness whose evidence it becomes necessary to take 
at once, the regular order may be suspended for the purpose and such 
testimony taken, and then the regular order resumed." 

On motion of Major Livermore the Joint Commission adjourned for ten 
minutes, to enable each Commission to discuss the resolution separately; at 
the end of which time the two Commissions came together, and the resolu- 
tion was adopted. 

Adjourned at 12 m., to meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. 

Lanstng H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



— 6 — 

Friday, February 26, 1886. 
The Commissions met at 10:40 a. m. 
Present : All the members of both Commissions. 

The Commission then listened to the testimony of Gen. Marcy, which it 
was desirable to take at this time, and which was as follows : 

"As the interrogatories that have been submitted to me involve so wide 
a scope that it would require much time and labor to answer them in detail, 
and as the answers to most of them are more fully set forth in my report of 
the exploration of Red River in 1852, than I could do at this time, it has 
occurred to me that a narrative of facts and opinions connected with the 
special subjects before the Commission might be more satisfactory than any 
other course. 

" If this meets the approbation of the gentlemen of the joint Commis- 
sions, I remark, tirst, that in 1849 I was ordered to escort emigrants from 
Fort Smith, Arkansas, to Santa Fe, N. M., en route to California, and on 
the 4th of April left Fort Smith with some 500 emigrants, following up the 
Canadian River for about 200 miles through a timbered section, when we 
emerged into the plains, upon the elevated ridge dividing the waters of the 
Canadian and Washita Rivers. And we continued upon this divide, passing 
the headwaters of the latter near the Antelope Hills, and thence upon the 
continuation of the divide of the Red and Canadian Rivers for about 300 
miles over a very smooth prairie, and our track seldom running out of sight 
of the Canadian River, but a much greater distance from the Rod River. 
And I here remark that the ground upon both sides of this divide was so 
cut up by ravines and washes that it would have been difficult to have taken 
our wagons over any other track except directly upon the divide. At 
length, however, the Canadian turned so much out of our course that we 
left it and struck a straight course for the Pecos River, and crossing at 
Anton Chico we found a wagon road that led us to Santa Fe, N. M., 720 
miles from the point of our departure at Fort Smith. 

"Finding here that there was no direct wagon road to California, the 
emigrants were obliged to descend the Rio Del Norte ,300 miles to reach 
the Gila route, the only one then traveled. I accompanied them to where 
they struck this route, then left them and turned to the east at Dona Ana, 
taking my party of soldiers directly back to Fort Smith via the headwaters 
of the Colorado, Brazos, and Trinity Rivers, making a most excellent wagon 
trail 904 miles in length, which was followed for several years afterwards by 
California emigrants. 

"In 1851 I was ordered to establish a military post as far out on the 
south side of the Canadian River as requisites for a garrison could be found, 
but I advised placing this post on the Washitaw River, which was acceded 
to, and I established it near that stream and named it Fort Arbuckle. 

"The Washita was here about 75 yards wide, a deep and rapid stream, 
furnishing a good portion of water to Red River. It rises near the Ante- 
lope Hills, within about five miles of the Canadian River, and enters Red 
River near Preston, Texas. 

"The detailed account of my exploration of Red River, with descriptions 
of the country through which it flows, will be found in my Report, which is 
before the Commission, and to which I beg leave to refer. As the time 
that has elapsed since I made that exploration (33 years) is so great, many 
of the facts and events connected therewith have passed from my memory, 



— 7 — 

but some matters relative to the objects for which this Commission was con- 
vened, as I understand, may not be found in the Report. 

" I have this morning for the first time seen a copy of that portion of 
Melish's map of the United States embracing the part of the Red River 
country which the Commission has under consideration at this time, which 
is authenlicated by the signature of the Secretary of State of the United 
States. Upon this map only one large fork of Red River is delineated, 
with one more northerly small affluent, which is not named, but may have 
been intended for the Washita River or Cache Creek. ]3ut none of the im- 
portant southern tributaries, such as the Big Witchita, Pease River, and the 
Prairie Dog Town River, are delineat(id thereon, unless the stream marked 
as the ' Rio San Saba ' is designed for the Prairie Dog Town branch, and as 
the real Rio San Saba of 'J'exas is 500 miles or thereabouts distant from 
this locality, it does not seem improbable that if the maker of the map had 
any vague conception of the existence of such a stream as the Prairie Dog 
Town River, he might have intended this as such. It certainly runs, as far 
as the section of the map shows it, nearly in the direction of that branch of 
Red River, and is put down as rising near the eastern border of the Staked 
Plains, but the small section of the map does not show where it runs. 

" I regarded the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main Red River, for 
the reason that its bed was much wider than that of the North Fork, al- 
though the water only covered a small portion of its bed, and as the sandy 
earth absorbed a good deal of the water after it debouched from the canyon 
through which it flows, it may not contribute any more water to the lower 
river than the North Fork. The Prairie Dog Town branch and the North 
Fork of Red River, from their confluence to their sources, are of about 
equal length, the former being 180 miles and the latter 177 miles in length. 
For reasons which I will presently state, I have been unable to resist the 
force of my own convictions, that the branch of Red River that 1 called 
the North Fork of that stream was what is designated upon Melish's map 
as 'Rio Roxo.' 1 doubt if the Prairie Dog Town River was ever known 
to civilized men prior to my exploration in 1852, and if it was ever mapped 
before then 1 am not aware of it. 

" The character of the country through which this stream flows is such 
that travelers would not have been likely to pass over it when there was a 
much more favorable route north of the North Fork. The water in the 
Prairie Dog Town branch, from its confluence with the North Fork to 
within two miles of its head spring (about 180 miles), I found so bitter and 
unpalatable that many of my men became sick from drinking it. But one 
pool of fresh water was found throughout the entire distance, and the In- 
dians told me they never went up this stream with their families if it could 
be avoided, for the reason that the nauseous water frequently proved fatal 
to their children. Hence it is not suiprising that but little, if anything, 
should have been known of this repulsive region before my exploration in 
1852, and this probably accounts for the entire absence of most of the 
southern branches upon Melish"s niaji. 

" It is very certain that the Prairie Dog Town River was never delienated 
upon any of our maps, or designated by any Spanish, French, or English 
name, as were most of the other streams in that country, and it was only 
known to the Indians and possibly to some Mexican traders as the Ke-che- 
ah-que-ho-no, a Comanche appellation, the signification of which the Dela- 
wares informed me was Prairie Dog Town River. I was informed in New 
Mexico that the Mexicans were the only semi-civilized people who for many 
years ventured into the Comanche and Kiowa country, and they only went 



— 8 — 

there for traffic, transporting their merchandise in ox carts from Santa Fe 
along the identical track which I followed in escorting California emigrants 
from Arkansas iu 1849, where, as I said before, we found for the greater 
part of the way a perfectly smooth prairie surface iipon a high divide ad- 
mirably adapted to wagon travel, with abundance of good wood, water, and 
grass for camping purposes, and upon this route deep Mexican cart tracks, 
made when the ground was soft many years previous, were observed, show- 
ing that the route had been traveled for a long time, but no such tracks, 
roads, or trails were seen within the valley of the Prairie Dog Town River, 
and no evidences of Indians having frequented that section were observed 
there. As before stated, owing to the absence of good water, the sandy 
character of the soil along this river, and the formidable obstruction pre- 
sented by the elevated and wide spur of the Staked Plain and the extensive 
beds of gypsum crossing this route, the Mexicans would never have at- 
tempted to traverse it with their carts in their trading expeditions from 
Santa Fe to Nacogdoches, especially when there was so good a route a little 
further north possessing all the requisites for prairie traveling. 

"The Rio Rojo or Roxo upon Melish's map is almost entirely south and 
west of the Witchetaw Mountains, but in close proximity to them, which is 
in accord with ray determination of the position of the North Fork, while 
there are no mountains upon the Prairie Dog Town branch. 

"The head of the Rio Roxo upon Melish's map is put down as in about 
latitude 37 degrees, while upon my map the true latitude is 35-^ degrees, 
while the Prairie Dog Town River rises in about latitude 34|- degrees, so 
that if his Rio Roxo was intended to represent the ' Prairie Dog Town 
River' it would be 2^ degrees of latitude too far north. 

"Owing to the imperfection of our instruments for the determination of 
longitude we did not place implicit reliance in the accuracy of our conclu- 
sions regarding the 100th degree of longitude, although a series of observa- 
tions upon lunar distances were taken. But as Capt. McClellan was unable 
to procure a chronometer from the Engineer Department at Washington, 
he was obliged to substitute therefor a pocket lever watch, which probably 
accounts for. the error in the determination of the longitude at the 100th 
meridian. But the latitudes given upon my map were the results of from 
12 to 15 observations of Polaris for the determination of each position, 
and are believed to be correct. 

" I passed over the traders' overland route from the Missouri River to 
Santa Fe first in 1867, striking the Arkansas River near Fort Larned, 
about 75 miles below Fort Dodge. The road 1 traveled up the Arkansas 
keeps altogether upon the north bank of the river, and with the exception 
of ten miles in the river bottom, it continues for several hundred miles 
to Pueblo, when it turns to the south and traverses the mountains through 
the Raton Pass, thence to Las Vegas and Santa Fe. This is one of the 
traders' routes from the Missouri River and Independence, Mo., which for 
many years was the eastern terminus of their route. This was a broad, 
smooth, natural road, and many large trains of merchandise passed over it 
annually. Another road called the Cimarron route was sometimes traveled 
by the traders, which only followed up the Arkansas a short distance above 
Fort Dodge, where it crossed, and leaving the rivei', passed entirely around 
the mountains, uniting with the Raton Mountain road on the southwest 
side of the mountains. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad runs 
up the Arkansas River upon the old Raton Mountain track to the base of 
the mountains near Fort Lyon, then turns more south, passing over a spur 
of the Raton chain. 



— 9 — 

" A great deal of the trade with Northern Mexico for many years passed 
from Independence over these roads, extending as far south as Chihuahua, 
and the Spanish Governor of New Mexico levied toll upon all that passed 
down from Santa Fe. 

"When I visited Santa Fe first, in 1849, the trade from the Missouri 
River over the traders' route from Independence to Santa Fe and Northern 
Mexico was, and for many years previous had been, in successful prosecu- 
tion, and as I understood afterward, it continued to Chihuahua until this 
trade was, in a measure, transferred to San Antonio, Texas. 

" It is true that what appears on late maps as the Elm Fork of Red River, 
and flowing into the North Fork, was named by me ' Salt Fork ' and so 
designated on my map, and the stream called 'Salt Fork,' and flowing into 
the South Fork of Red River, was named by me Gypsum Creek and so 
styled on my map. Respectfully submitted, 

(Signed) "R.B. Marcy." 
" Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy, this :^6th day of 
[l.s.] February, A. D. 188G. 

(Signed) " I. Lovenbero, 

" Notary Public for Galveston county, Texas." 

Here the Texas Commission ceased to inquire, and in answer to questions 
propounded by Commission of United States witness states as follows, to- 
wit: 

"I do not know what means Melish had for delineating the course of 
upper Red River upon his map, but think it was for the most part compiled 
from hearsay, and it is possible that tlie courses of some other stream may 
have been thought to flow into Red River. 

" Respectfully submitted, 

(Signed) " R. B. Marcy,"' 
"Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy, this 26th day of 
[l.s.] February, A. D. 1886. 

(Signed) " I. Lovenberg, 
"Notary Public for Galveston county, Texas." 

The Commissions then, at 1 p. m., adjourned to meet Wednesday, March 
3rd, at 10 o'clock a. m. Lansing H. Beach, 

1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



Wednesday, March 3, 1886. 
The Commission on the part of the United States met. pursuant to ad- 
journment, at 10 o'clock a. m., and receiving the following telegram: 

"Austin, Texas, March 2, 1886. 
"Col. Mansfield, care Tremont Hotel, Galveston: 

"Col. Herndon is called to his dying mother at Denton. This will delay 
our coming one day. J. T. Brackenridge." 

Adjourned to meet to-morrow at 1 a. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



— 10 — 

Thursday, March 4, 1886. 

The Commissions met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:55 a. m. 

Present: All the members of both Commissions except Mr. Herndon of 
the Texas Commission, who telegraphed that he would be unable to arrive 
before noon Friday. 

The secretary then read the following statement of the United States 
Commissioners: 

"The records of the meeting, February 25th, show that we have been 
detailed by the President of the United States, to act in conjunction with 
the Commission appointed by the State of Texas, to ascertain and mark tl;e 
point where the 100th meridian of longitude west from London crosses the 
Red River in accordance with the terms of the treaty between the United 
States and Spain, executed February 22nd, 1819. 

" Some time after the publication of the order of the President, tne Gov- 
ernor of Texas requested that the terms of the order should be modified. 
He says: 'The ascertainment of the point where the true 100th meridian 
crosses Red River was an easy task, one that well known rules of mathe- 
matics and astronomy could aid in ascertaining. It was capable of demon- 
stration and incapable of furnishing any grounds of misunderstanding 
between the two governments. The agents of both parties could ascertain it.' " 
(Letter of Governor Ireland, Appendix A.) 

"It is hoped that the Commissioners from Texas agree with Governor 
Ireland in this view. 

"In reply, the Hon. Secretary of War wrote, that the matter had been 
laid before the President, and said: ' The Executive orders in the case, copies 
of which have been furnished you, are considered to include all that you 
suggest in the matter and all that is required by the act of Congress. The 
Commission is to perform the duty prescribed by the act of Congress, and 
the orders do not and should not limit the extent of the powers of the Com- 
mission.' " (Letter of the Secretary of War, Appx. B.) 

"It is then only necessary to consider the terms of the treaty before pro- 
ceeding together to make a more accurate determination of longitude than 
was practicable in 1859 owing to the want of telegraphic communication. 
The terms of the treaty require that the ■■ohole shall be as laid down 
in Melish's map, and in order that we may act in harmony as far as possible 
with the Commissioners from Texas, it is proper to consider, first of all, how 
this provision may be carried out to the fullest extent. 

"On the accompanying map is represented in red ink an exact copy of 
Melish's map of 1818. and in black the true course of the pi'incipal streams 
and a few other topographical details. 

" It has long been known that Melish's map was but a most imperfect 
representation of the country. Governor Ireland says. ' It was well known, 
no doulit, to both contracting parties, that Melish's map was not correct. 
He knew there was a Red River of Louisiana, and that it had a source, but 
where the source was, or the tributaries or bi-anches, if any, were wholly 
unknown to him and to the contracting parties. This is the conclusion 
drawn from .the language of the treaty.' The Governor further says: 
' The true meridian was stable, and so was the stream referred to. But 
being conscious of the errors of Melisli's map, and that it would not stand 
the test of demonstration, but having it before them, they undoubtedly 
intended that the boupdary should be at the point where iVIelish showed 



— 11 — 

the 100th meridian on Red River.' This point is marked on the red and 
black map with a star, and is found in latitude 3:5 degrees 55 minutes, or 
thereabouts, and on or near the Big Wichita River. As suggested by 
Governor Ireland, if the Commissioners of the United States and Spain, 
in dividing up the land betvi^een the two countries, were guided by the po- 
sition of Red River as laid down in the map affixed to the treaty, they in- 
tended to assign to the United States about 15,000 square miles of territory 
over and above that which has ever been claimed; for the boundary, as de- 
fined by Red River, is represented 40 or 50 miles south of the true course 
of this river. 

" It appears from the records in our possession that a Commission was 
appointed by the President of the United States, under the Act of Con- 
gress June 5th, 1858, to survey the boundary line between the United 
States and Texas, in connection with a like Commission on the part 
of Texas. In the year 1859 -The Joint Commission on the part of 
the United States and the State of Texas commenced work together on the 
Rio Grrande, but the Texas Commissioner did not remain long in the field, 
on account of personal differences between himself and the United States 
Commissioner. A new Texas Commissioner came and assisted in the sur- 
vey of a part of the west boundary, or 103d meridian west longitude.' In 
the month of April, 1859, under a contract between Jones and Brown and 
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, an astronomical survey was made of 
the lOOth meridian west from Greenwich, being the boundary line between 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw country and Texas. The initial point of the 
boundary was determined to be at the intersection of said meridian with 
what is designated upon the maps of the General Land Office as Red River, 
and a monument was established 30 chains due north from the north bank 
of said river. The following extract is taken from the field notes of such 
survey: 'The river due south from monument is 76 chains and 85 links 
wide from high water mark to high water mark; while the North Pork of 
Red River is 23 chains wide. It will be sufficient to say to those interested, 
that there can be no doubt as to the fact of its being the main branch of 
Red River, as was doubted by some persons with whom we had conversed 
relative to the matter before seeing it, for the reason the channel is larger 
than all the rest of its tributaries combined, besides affording its equal 
share of water, though, like the other branches, in many places the water 
is swallowed up by its broad and extensive sand beds, but water can in any 
season of the year be obtained from 1 to 3 feet from the surface in the 
main bed of the stream.' Captain Marcy, in his report and map, also 
specifies it as the Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no, or main Red River. 

'•This determination was at once questioned by the Governor of Texas. 
Commissioners appointed on the part of the United States and of Texas 
proceeded to their work in May and June, 1860. Governor Sam Houston 
of Texas instructed the Commissioner of that State as follows: 'In the 
prosecution, then, of the survey you will be guided by Melish's map, and in- 
sist upon the North Fork as the Main Rio Roxo or Red River, and as the 
true boundary line as described in the treaty of 1819.' He refers in his 
letter of instructions to the Marcy survey, and claims that Marcy was clearly 
of the opinion that the North Fork was the true Rio Roxo or Red River 
proper, and further claims that said map of Melish's lays down the North 
Fork as the main prong. The Commissioners were unable to agree, the 
one on the part of the United States claiming that at and across the Red 
River and to a point about half way from the North Fork to the Canadian 
River the line had been definitely located by Messrs. Jones and Brown the 



— 12 — 

year before, and that nothing now remained but to extend the line north to 
latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes, its northern extremity. To this the Com- 
missioner on the part of Texas objected, and the latter proceeded south to 
the North Fork, and placed a monument thereon on the north bank, 15 feet 
in diameter and 7 feet high, claiming that as the true southwest corner of 
Indian Territory, and reported his doings to the Governor of Texas. The 
United States Commissioner retraced the line and confirmed the location of 
the monument on Prairie Dog Town Fork. 

" Messrs. Brown and Jones had no doubt of the south being the main 
branch. The reasons they give seem to be conclusive. The width of the 
South Fork at the one hundredth meridian is 76 chains and 85 links; that 
of the North Fork 23 chains. The field notes of the Commissioner on the 
part of the United States, acting under the Act June 5, 1858, of the date of 
August 29, 1860, say the channel of the North Fork is only 25 chains and 
44 feet; and that he found no water 'on the surface, i. e. river bed, but it is 
found by digging 2 feet 3 inches below the surface.' While in his field 
notes of August 30 he says: 'Struck main Red River. Main Red River 
where crossed, 65 chains and 38 feet; channel of running water, 22 feet 6 
inches deep. Plenty of long large lagoons of water in the bed, besides the 
running channel.' 

" The Judiciary Committee of the House, to whom was referred H. R. 
1715, in their report No. 1282, Forty-seventh Congress, first session, to ac 
company House Resolution No. 223, state that if the data which they had 
been considering were correct, there would seem to be no doubt of the claim 
of the United States to the tract in dispute, and the committee reports ad- 
versely on the bill. But for reasons stated the committee were of the 
opinion that the State should be heard and given an opportunity to co-oper- 
ate with the United States in settling the facts upon which the question in 
dispute rests. 

" The Act of the Texas Legislature authorizing the appointment of the 
Commission from their State has in view the exact location of the meridian, 
and the determination ' whether the North Fork or the Prairie Dog Town 
Fork is the true Red River designated in the treaty,' and directs that: 
' Sec. 3. Such Commissioner or Commissioners on the part of Texas shall 
attempt to have said survey herein provided for by the Joint Commission 
made and performed between the first day of July and the first day of 
October of ihe year in which said survey is made, when the ordinary stage 
of water in each fork of said Red River may be observed.' The United 
States Commissioners are ready to co-operate in these astronomical and 
hydraulic determinations, and would recommend that the examination be 
extended over a year or more, if no other criterion will finally determine 
which of the two forks is the main Red River. 

"The Texas Commissioners are also required by act of Legislature to ex- 
amine maps, etc., etc., and that we may co-operate with them as far as possi- 
ble, and give them the advantage of all records and knowledge at our 
command, we will first examine the map of Mr. Melish to which so much 
importance has been attached. We have already found by superposition 
that the treaty map does not correspond with the true delineation of the 
country, which so far as concerns the location of the larger streams and 
mountains is no longer uncertain or indefinite. It is true the treaty only 
takes cognizance of what Mr. Melish, the publisher, laid down on his map, 
and not of what he intended to represent, for the latter is to a certain ex- 
tent hypothetical and not, perhaps, so clear as to settle the boundary to the 
satisfaction of all parties. But many whose opinions are entitled to great 



— 13 — 

respect have fancied that the upper course of the stream bore a great 
resemblance to the North Fork, and others to the Prairie Dog Town Fork 
of the Red River. We wish to disclaim any opinion based solely upon a 
theory that Mr. Melish, or his authorities, thought that the tortuous stream 
descending from the neighborhood of Taos represented any of the particu- 
lar forks of the Red River as we now know them. Such fancied resem- 
blances often have the appearance and force of reality to the minds of those 
who discover them. For example, Governor Houston in 1860 thought 
that Melish's map laid down the North Fork as the main prong, and he ap- 
pears to have been well satisfied that 'its prominent features' helped to 
' establish this fact.' Accordingly in appointing a Commissioner to co-operate 
with the one for the United States he instructed him to locate his monu- 
ment, not according to his judgment in the field, but according to the Gov- 
ernor's preconceived theory. Others fully as sincere as Governor Houston, 
have identified this river of Mr. Melish with the North Fork, the South 
Fork, the False Washita, the Pecos, and the Canadian rivers, and some have 
noticed the striking resemblance of its upper or middle course to the big 
bend of the Rio Grande. 

"While the United States Commissioners fully believe that the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork of the river corresponds most nearly with the Red River 
as laid down on this map, they do not mean to claim that Mr. Melish was 
aware of it. An examination of the map shows that Mr. Melish, the pub- 
lisher, was indebted for this part of it to the New Spain of the celebrated 
Baron Von Humboldt, who derived his knowledge of the country from the 
Mexicans. No one appreciated better than he the folly of the early geogra- 
phers of this country. He says: ' It is a false application of the principles 
of hydrography when geographers attempt to determine the chains of moun- 
tains in countries of which they suppose they know the course of rivers. 
They suppose that two great basins of water can only be separated by great 
elevations, or that a considerable river can only change its direction when a 
group of mountains oppose its course. They forget that frequently the 
most elevated beds give rise to no water, while the sources of the most con- 
siderable rivers are distant from high chains of mountains. Hence the 
attempts which have hitherto been made to construct maps from theoretical 
ideas have never been very successful.' Yet, so strong is the tendency of 
the human mmd to construct and generalize, that Humboldt himself had 
his theory of mountain system, and he has been accused by more patient 
topographers of -attempting to figure the whole North American continent 
from the results of a few excursions into Mexico.' The compiler of the sur- 
veys for the Pacific railroads complains that mountain ridges have sometimes 
been improvised for the occasion and the want of facts supplied by gene- 
ralizations and ideal connections. Confusion and error have thus resulted, 
rendering much study necessary to separate the ascertained from the assumed. 
And it is said, that in no country has hypothetical geography been carried 
to such an e.Ktent, or been attended with more disastrous consequences than 
in the United States.' According to Humboldt's theory the Rocky Moun- 
tain chain stood in the same relation to the northern half of the continent 
that the Andes did to the southern, and this may have led to the conclu- 
sion that, ' hi the northern part of New Afexico near Taos, a7id to the north of 
that city, rivers take their rise which run into the Mississipjyi. The Rio de Pecos 
is probably the same icith the Red River of Natchitoches, and tlie Rio Napestla 
is perhaps the same river which further east takes the name Arkansas.' 
(New Spain, Vol. H, p. 214, New York, 1811.) From his account of Texas 
(pp. 186 to 190), it appears that the country north of the Colorado of Texas 



— 14 — 

was uninhabited. The knowledge of its geography did not extend fai* 
beyond tlie banks of this river, but the parties sent out from the mission of 
San Saba would bring back some information about the neighboring streams. 
By examining the red and black map it will be seen that in this region the 
Red River as laid down by Melish coincides vv^ith the Brazos, and cor- 
responds with it in general shape, and in distance from San Saba. The 
Brazos de Dios of Melish shows the Clear and Elm Forks of the Brazos as 
they would appear to the Mexicans, and the forks of Molish's Red River co- 
incide exactly with the Double Mountain and Salt Forks as they flow from 
the breaks of the Staked Plains. The deep red color of the watei's of these 
forks, as well as their general direction, led the early settlers to mistake 
them for the Red River of Natchitoches, and in is probable that the Red 
River of Melish and Humboldt was formed by tracing the upper course from 
near Taos, and to the north of that point, across the unexplored regions of 
the Staked Plains to the Red River north of San Saba, and from this river 
to the borders of Louisiana, where it coincides, as well as can be expected, 
with the 'River of Natchitoches,' to which he refers. 

"The orthography of Indian names has never been as inflexible as that 
of more civilized nations, and the rivers represented on modern maps as Big 
and Little Wichita, are spelled indifferently AVashita or Ouachita, by the 
early writers. 

"For the object of this Commission, it is hardly necessary to examine 
other errors in this map, but the topographer may find interest or diversion 
in comparing the ranges of mountains with the break of the Staked Plain, 
and considering whether they were intended to represent these declivities, 
or whether they were inserted in accordance with the theories above men- 
tioned, viz., to divide the mountain streams, and to account for tlie cliange 
of direction at the big bends. 

" SUMMARY. 

" Leaving out of consideration all other streams that may appear to co- 
incide with the fictitious representation of the Red River, our instructions, 
as well as those of the Commission on the part of Texas, require us to di- 
rect our efforts to determine 'whether the North Fork of Red River or 
the Prairie Dog Town Fork of said river is the true Red River designated 
in the treaty.' Our first duty appears to be to test the accuracy of those 
reports that to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives 
appeared sufficient to fix the boundary at the Prairie Dog Town Fork, and 
if they prove to be erroneous, then to decide which of the two forks above 
mentioned is the longer, which drains the greater area, which shows the 
greater flow of water at the lOOtli meridian, at the junction, and through- 
out its course, and which corresponds more nearly with the boundary as 
laid down on Melish's map. If it then appear that the main or Prairie 
Dog Town Fork is also nearer to the boundary as laid down, we should 
determine the meridian and place the monument. 

"In the present stage of the investigation it appears to the United States 
Commissioners that all these conditions are best satisfied by the Prairie Dog 
Town Fork, for the following reasons: 

" 1st. It corresponds more nearly in position with the Red River as laid 
down in Melish's map. 

" iind. It corresponds more nearly in direction with tlie Red River as 
laid down on Melish's map at its intersection with the 100th meridian west 
from London, 



— 15 — 

" 3d. It corresponds more nearly in direction witli tlie main course of 
the Red River than the North Pork. 

"4th. It is a longer stream; its source is further from the mouth and 
from the junction of the two forks, and it probably affords a greater de- 
velopment. 

"5th. It is wider and deeper at its intersection with the 100th merid- 
ian, and contains more water. 

" 6th. It drains a large area. 

"7th. It appears to be wider and deeper, and throughout the year to 
contribute more water to the stream below. 

" The reasons for forming these conclusions will now be briefly stated 
under the corresponding number. 

"1st. The North Fork lies about 80 miles north of the stream as laid 
down on Melish's map; the Prairie Dog Town Fork, about 40 miles. 

"2nd. The North Fork from the lOOth meridian to the junction differs 
in direction from the stream on Melish's map by 30 degrees, the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork by 10 degrees. From the 100th meridian to the 99th 
meridian, the North J"'ork by 30 degrees, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 
degrees. From the lOOth meridian to the 98tli meridian, the North Fork 
by 15 degrees, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 6 degrees. From the lOOth 
meridian to the 9'7th meridian, the North Fork by 12 degrees, the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork by 5 degrees. From the 100th meridian to the 96th 
meridian, the North Fork by 8 degrees, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 4 
degrees. Beyond this the advantage is all with the Prairie Dog Town 
Fork. 

"3rd. From the lOOth meridian to the junction the two forks make the 
following angles with the river below : 

To 98th meridian. North Fork 50 degrees, P. D. T. Fork 5 degrees. 
" 97th " " " 50 " " " " 

" 96th " " " 48 " " " 3 

"4th. The source of Red River was determined by Captains Marcy and 
McClellan to be west of the 103rd meridian, but Mr. Clarke, United States 
Commissioner, surveying the line found no water in the arroyos on this 
meridian. Capt. Clous, Acting Engineer OfBcer for Gen. Mackenzie, from 
observations with a sextant placed the source at latitude 32 degrees 44 
minutes, longitude 102 degrees 45 minutes. This is the latest and best in- 
formation we have; it makes the total length of the Prairie Dog Town Fork 
200 miles in a straight line from its source to the junction. That of the 
North Fork is 125 miles. The road that follows the course of the North 
Fork is estimated by Capt. Marcy at 177 miles; according to the latest 
maps it is 180 miles. Capt. Marcy estimated the road along the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork at 180 miles; the latest maps show it to be 220 miles. 

" 5th. The evidence in favor of the Prairie Dog Town Fork at its inter- 
section with the 100th meridian has already been quoted, and may here be 
recapitulated as follows: 

Wifith of N. Fork. Width of P. D. T. Fork. 

Brown and Jones 23 chains 76 chains, 85 links. 

U. S. Commissioner in 1860. . . .25 chains, 44 ft 65 chains, 38 feet. 

The United States Commissioner reported that he found in the North 
Fork no water on the surface, and in the Prairie Dog Town Fork, water 22 
feet wide and 6 inches deep. 

" 6th. According to the latest map issued by the Chief of Engineers, 
which has been carefully compared with the best information we possess. 



— 16 — 

the area drained by the two forks is as follows: North Fork, 4560 square 
miles; Prairie Dog Town Fork, 9420 square miles. 

" 'Zth. No exact measurements have been made of the flow of water 
throughout the year, but the fact that the Prairie Dog Town Fork drains 
twice as large an area makes it highly probable. The evidence of Jones 
and Brown, already quoted, and all others that we have been able to col- 
lect, tends to confirm this view, and to show also that its river bed is 
wider. In the case of navigable streams the annual discharge is often 
taken as a criterion for determinmg the main fork or channel, but with 
other streams the area that it drains has been held conclusive. 

"We do not make these assertions dogmatically, but in the light of our 
present knowledge, and in the conscientious belief in their truth and accu 
racy. We know that many have claimed for the North Fork some of the 
points that we claim for the Prairie Dog Town Fork, and with a sincere 
belief in the accuracy of their own views. 

" We are open to conviction on all points, and would be glad to hear 
from the Texas Commissioners a statement as frank and explicit as ours 
upon the.se points and others that appear to them to bear upon the problem 
before us, in order that we may bring our differences within as narrow a 
scope as possible, and thereby reduce the labor and expense of the field 
operations necessary to decide them. 

(Signed) "S. M. Mansfield, 

"Major of Engineers, 
"Brvt. Lieut. GoL U. S. A. 
(Signed) " W. R. Livermore, 

"Major of Engineers. 
(Signed) " Tnos. L. Casey, 

"1st Lieut, of Engineers. 
(Signed) " Lansing H. Beach, 

"1st Lieut, of Engineers." 

Adjourned at 11:40 a. m., to meet to-morrow at 2 p. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



Friday, March 5, 1886. 
The Commission met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2:25 p. m. 
Present: All the members of both Commissions. 
Adjourned at 2:55 p. m., to meet to-morrow at 10 a m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



Saturday, March 6, 1886. 
The Commission on the part of the LTnited States met, pursuant to ad- 
journment, at 10 a. m., and receiving a request from the Commission on 



— 17 — 

the part of Texas for furtlicr time, adjourned to meet at the call of the 
chairmen. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



Tuesday, March 9, 1886. 
The Commission met, pursuant to call of the chairman, at 2:10 p. m. 
Present: All the members of both Commissions. 
The Secretary of the Texas Commission then read the following: 

''Office of Joint Commission 
ON Boundary between the LTnited States and State of Texas, 
"Galveston, Texas, March 8, 1886. 
"Col. S. M. Mansfield, Cliairniau of Commission on tlie part of the United States: 

"Sir — Under the rules and resolutions adopted by the Joint Commis- 
sion for its procedure and government, your Commission has formulated 
and presented to the Texas Commission the issues on the question of 
boundary on the part of the United States, the affii-mative of which you 
propose to maintain by evidence and argument, and said issues and a state- 
ment of your case have become a part of the record. In answer to these 
issues the Commission on the part of Texas, for the purpose of narrowing 
the controversy to the fewest possible propositions consistent with the 
grave duties imposed and the results to be attained, respectfully submit a 
statement of the acts creating the Joint Commission and prescribing its 
action, the positions assumed as conceded and requiring no proof, and the 
issues and claim of Texas, which will be supported by evidence and argu- 
ment. 

" statement of legislative provisions. 

"The Act of Congress, approved January 31, 1885, quoting from the 
treaty between the United States and Spain, made 22nd February, 1810, 
on the boundary line, and adopting the same as part of the act, says: ' Be- 
ginning on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Sabine River, in the 
sea, and continuing north along the western bank of that river to the 
thirty-second degree of latitude; thence by a line due north to the degree 
of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River; 
thence following the course of the Rio Ro.xo westward to the one-hun- 
dredth degree of longitude west from London and the twenty-third from 
Washington; thence crossing the said Red River and running thence by a 
line due north to the river Arkansas; thence following the course of the 
southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude forty-two degrees 
north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea; the whole 
being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at 
Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, eighteen hundred and 
eighteen; and 

" ' Whereas, A controversy exists between the United States and Texas 
as to the point where the one-hundredth meridian of longitude crosses the 
Red River, as described in the treaty; and 



— 18 — 



a i 



Whereas, The point of crossing has never been ascertained and fixed 
by any authority competent to bind the United States and Texas; and 

" ' ^Vhereas, It is desirable that a settlement of this controversy should 
be had, to the end that the question of boundry, now in dispute because of 
a difference of opinion as to said crossing, may also be settled; therefore, 

" ' ^e it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United 
States be, and is hereby, authorized to detail one or more officers of the 
Army, who, in conjunction with such person or persons as may be appointed 
by the State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark tlie point where the one 
hundredth meridian of longitude crosses Red River in accordance with the 
terms of the treaty aforesaid.' 

"And the Legislature of Texas passed an act, approved May 2, 1882, on 
the same subject, to-wit: 

"'Section 1. Beit enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas^ That 
the Governor of this State be, and is hereby, authorized and empowei'ed to 
appoint a suitable person or persons who, in conjunction with such person 
or persons as may be appointed by or on behalf of the United States for 
the same purpose, shall run and mark the boundary lines between the Terri- 
tories of the United States and the State of Texas, as follows: Beginning at 
a point where a line drawn north from the intersection of the thirty -second 
degree of north latitude with the western bank of the Sabine River crosses 
Red River, and thence following the course of said river westwardly to the 
degree of longitude one hundred west from London and twenty-three 
from Washington, as said line was laid down in Melish's map of the LTnited 
States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818, 
and designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, made 
February 22, A. D. 1819. 

"'Sec. 2. Said Joint Commission will report their survey, made in 
accordance with the foregoing section of this act, together with all neces- 
sary notes, maps, and other papers, in order that in fixing that part of the 
boundary between the Territories of the United States and the State of 
Texas the question may be definitely settled as to the true location of the 
one hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and whether the 
North Fork of Red River or the Prairie Dog Fork of said river is the true 
Red River designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, 
made Febr;iar3'- 22, 1819, and in locating said line said Commissioners shall 
be guided by actual surveys and measurements, together with sucii well 
established marks, natural and artificial, as may be found, and such well- 
authenticated maps as may throw light upon the subject; and when the 
main or principal Red River is ascertained as agreed upon in said treaty of 
1819, and the point is fully designated where the one hundredth degree of 
longitude west from London and twenty-third degree of longitude west 
from Washington crosses said Red River, the same shall be plainly marked 
and defined as a corner in said boundary, and said Commissioners shall 
establish such other permanent monuments as may be necessaiy to mark 
their work.' 

" Under these legislative acts the Joint Commission derives its authority 
and power to act on the question in controversy, and by them its duties are 
limited and prescribed. In the congressional act it provides that the Com- 
mission -shall ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meri- 
dian of longitude crosses Red River in accordance with the terms of the 
treaty aforesaid.' 

"The legislative act of Texas directs that the Commission -shall run and 



— 19 — 

mark the bound ry lines between tlie Territories of tlie United States and 
the State of Texas,' as follows: 

" ' Beginning at a point where a line drawn north fi'om the intersection 
of the thirty-second degree of north latitude with the western bank of the 
Sabine River crosses Red River, and thence following the course of said 
river westwardly to the degree of longitude one hundred west from Lou- 
don and twenty-three degrees west from Washington, as said line was laid 
down in Melislrs map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, im- 
proved to the first of January, 1818, and designated in the treaty between 
the United States and Spain, made February 22, A. D. 1819.' 

^'Section 2 provides that 'all necessary notes, maps, and other papers,' 
shall be reported ' in order that in fixing that part of the boundary between 
the Territories of the United States and the State of Texas the question may 
he definitely settled as to the true location of the one hundredth degree of longitude 
west from London, and ivhether the North Fork of Red River or the Prairie Dog 
Fork of said river is the true Red River designated in the treaty between the United 
States and Spain, made February '2-2, 1819.' It further provides the '■Com- 
missioners shall he guided by actual surveys and measurements, together viith such 
well-established marks, natural and artificial, as may be found, and such well au- 
thenticated maps as may throw light on the subject,' and when the main or 
principal Red River is ascertained, as agreed upon in said tready of 1819, and 
the point is fully designated^ where the one hundredth degree of west longi- 
tude crosses Red River, '■the same shall be plainly marked and defined as a cor- 
ner in said boundary, and such Commissioners shall establish such otlier 
permanent monument as may be necesssary to mark their work.' 

" ASSUMPTIONS. 



"It is assumed as a truth conceded by the Joint Commission that the 
State of Texas, under and by virtue of the several treaties and concessions 
between the United States and the Republic of Mexico and the United States 
and the Republic of Texas, is now subrogated to and entitled to every right, 
privilege, and title concerning the boundr}^ in dispute to which the King- 
dom of Spain was entitled under the treaty of February 22, 1819. 



"It is assumed that the Joint Commission must ascertain and mark the 
point where the one hundredth meridian of west longitude crosses Red 
Rivei', in accordance with the terms of the treaty of 1819. 

"III. 

'■ It is further assumed that in finding the point where the one hundredth 
degree of west longitude crosses Red River in accordance with the terms of 
the treaty of 1819, that if the one hundredth degree of west longitude shall 
cross Red River at a point west and north of where Melish's map, made part 
of said treaty, apparently fixed it, and west and north of the confluence of 
what is now known as the North Fork and the Prairie Dog Town Fork of 
Red River, then and in that event it will be the duty of the Commission to 
ascertain which one of said streams was the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or 
Red River, according to the terms of the said treaty of 1819, and in case of 



— 20 — 

disagreeement as to which was the Red River of the treaty, to establish the 
one hundredth meridian on both of said streams. 

" ISSUES PRESENTED ON PART OF UNITED STATES RESTATED AND DENIED. 

"I. 

" The issue made, alleging that the one hundredth degree of west longi- 
tude from London crosses the Prairie Dog Town or South Forl^ of Red 
River west of its junction with the North Fork of Red River as ascertained 
by observations and surveys made by different parties and under different 
conditions as described in the statement of the proposition, is denied; because 
the same was ascertained and located without the knowledge or presence of 
Texas, was made ex jmrte, and contradicts the location of said meridian line 
by Melish's map, made part of the treaty, which fixes the one hundredth 
degree of west longitude on said map relative to certain well known and 
permanent natural objects — such as the great bend of the Arkansas River; 
the mouth of the Canadian River where it empties into the Arkansas; the 
range of Wichita Mountains, stretching along the course of the Rio Roxo 
on the east and north side thereof; the bend of the Red River to the north- 
ward as shown on said map; th§ watershed and great basin toward the 
source of Red River. These and others then and now exist and no doubt 
influenced and convinced the framers of the treaty that the degree of west 
longitude was far to the eastward of the location of said meridian now con- 
tended for by the United States. And this location of said meridian claimed, 
also contradicts the finding and location thereof made by the United States 
under the direction of Captain R. B. Marcy in 1852 And upon the said 
issue presented on the part of the United States, the Texas Commission 
reserve the right at any time during the progress of these proceedings to 
offer evidence and argument in support of said meridian being located 
according to Melish's map, made part of the treaty. 



" By the terms of the issues presented it is affirmatively alleged and de- 
clared that the South Fork or Prairie Dog Town Fork of Red River is and 
was the Rio Roxo of Nachitoclies or Red River described in the treaty of 
1819. This is denied. On the contrary it is alleged and claimed on tlie 
part of Texas that the true 'Rio Roxo of Nachitoches,' or ' Red River.' de- 
scribed in the said treaty and delineated on Melish's map, was what was 
named and styled the North Fork of Red River for the first time in 1852 
by Captain R. B. Marcy, and has since been so called. Because said stream 
was at the date of said treaty and for a long time prior thereto well known 
to civilized man, and was in fact delineated on Melish's map, constituting 
part of the treaty, as the Rio Roxo or Red River, and the true boundary 
line was intended to follow the course of said stream until the one hundredth 
degree of west longitude crossed it, and not the Prairie Dog Town Fork, 
which was unknown to civilized man at the date of the treaty, was not dis- 
covered until 1852, and was never delineated on any map until Captain R. B. 
Marcy, who dis(;overed said stream, made his report thereof. 

"AFFIRMATIVE ISSUES AND CLAIMS OF TEXAS. 
"I. 

" Texas alleges, and will support by evidence, that under and by virtue 



— 21 — 

of the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain, 
that part of the boundary line now in controversy is and was a natural water 
course then and there declared to be the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or Red 
River, and that part of the said line now in dispute should be run and estab- 
lished as follows: Beginning at a })()int on the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or 
Red River, where a line due north from a point where the thirty-second 
degree of north latitude crosses the west bank of the Sabine River; 'thence 
following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the one hundredth degree 
of longitude west from London and the twenty-third from Washington: 
thence crossing the said Red River and running thence by a line due north,' 
etc. That where the one hundredth degree of longitude crosses said river 
the corner m the said boundary line of the treaty should be established. 

"II. 

"Texas alleges, and will support by evidence, that the Rio Roxo of 
Nachitoches, or Red River, described in the said treaty, is the continuation 
of said stream from the point of lieginning described in proposition num- 
ber I, now known and called the North Fork of Red River, but at the date 
of the treaty, and for a long period before that time, well known and actu- 
ally delineated on Melish's map, made part of the ti-eaty, as the Rio Roxo 
or Red River, and that this very stream was in fact the stream known and 
designated by the treaty as constituting the boundary line in controversy, 
and not the Prairie Dog Town or South Fork of Red River, which was not 
known to civilized man, delineated on any map at the date of the treaty, 
nor in fact discovered, until 1852, by Captain R. B. Marcy. 

" in. 

"That if, in ascertaining and locating the true one-hundredth degree of 
longitude west from London and twenty-three degrees west from Wash- 
ington, tlie said meridian shall be found to cross both the said Prairie Dog 
Town Fork and North Fork of Red River, in that case Texas alleges that 
the said meridian should be located and established on the said North 
Fork as the true corner in said boundary, the said North Fork being in 
fact and truth the Rio Roxo or Red River intended by and described in 
said treaty of 1819. 

"In submitting the statement, is.sues, and claims on the part of Texas, 
the Commissioners have done so with the lights before them, and may 
have committed some errors that will require a change, and if upon a more 
thorough examination into the evidence hereafter to be introduced the 
views here presented shall require modification, the Commission will deem 
it a duty to follow the light of truth into whatever field it may lead them. 

(Signed) "J. T. Brackenridgk. 

"Chairman, T. B. C." 

The Commission then, at 2:40 p. m., adjourned to meet at the call of the 

chairmen. 

Lansing H. Beacii, 

1st Lieut, of Engineers, 

Secretary. 



— 22 — 

Thursday, March 11, 1886. 
The Commission met, pursuant to the call of the chairmen, at 10:10 a. m^ 
Present: All the members of both Commissions, except Mr. Burgess of 
the Commission on the part of Texas. 

The Secretary then read the following statement of the U. S. Com- 
mission : 



" Office of Joint Commission 

ON BoUNDAllY BETWEEN THE UnITED StATES AND StATE OF TeXAS. 



'Galveston, Texas, March 10, 1886. ) 

"Mr. J. T. Brackpuridge, Chairmaa Texas Boundary Commission: 

" Sir — In reply to your paper presented and read at the last meeting of 
the Joint Commission, the Commission on the part of the United States 
have the honor to present the following rejoinder: 

" This paper, in answer to the issues on the part of the United States, 
submits certain positions assumed as conceded and requiring no proof; a 
silence on our part might lead to the belief that our views coincided with 
those of the Commission for Texas. "We therefore deem it our duty to 
state frankly to what extent we regard these assumptions as self-evident. 



We agree with the first assumption as stated, excepting in so far as the 
State of Texas, by her own act, or acquiescence, may have already com- 
mitted herself to a definite and specific interpretation of the treaty, or 



some part thereof. 



" We see no reason to dissent from the second assumption, which ap- 
pears to be a quotation from our instructions embodied in the President's 
order. 



'' With regard to the third assumption, we agree that it is the duty of 
the Joint Commission to ascertain whether the North Fork or the Prairie 
Dog Town Fork is the true Red River of the treaty, but we cannot find 
that the act of Congress, or that of the Texas Legislature, autliorizes the 
Commission to mark and define the point of intersection, until it is ascer- 
tained which is the main or principal Red River as agreed upon in the 
treaty of 1819. 

"After making these assumptions, to which the United States Commis- 
sion assent with the above provisos, the Commission on the part of Texas, 
for the purpose of narrowing the controversy to the fewest possible propo- 
sitions consistent with the grave duties imposed and the results to be 
attained, reassert and deny tliose of our issues from which they dissent, 
and submit the issues and claim of Texas, to be supported by evidence 
and argument. Hence, we infer that the Texas Commission does not deny 
that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is the larger, nor that it would justly be 
regarded as the main stream, except for the reason, which they allege, tliat 
the North Fork was at the date of said treaty, and for a long time prior 
thereto, well known to civilized man, and was in fact delineated in Melish's 
map, constituting part of the treaty, as the Rio Roxo or Red River. 



— 23 — 

"We will be glad to hear and consider any evidence that will tend to 
show that this fork was so designated, and on our part we herewith offer 
the following documents in support of our assertions. We do not claim for 
these maps the accuracy that could be attained by original observations ini 
the field; we do not even find an exact coincidence between tlie two maps,, 
nor have we positive evidence of the exact result of the astronomical deter- 
mination on which they were based, but we believe that we can from these' 
and other maps and surveys establish the points referred to in our paper' 
with regard to tlie relative size of the streams If. however, the Texas Com- 
mission does not consider the results of previous surveys sufficient to 
establish tliese points, we are ready to co-operate with them in the field 
operations necessary to decide them, such as running out together the water- 
shed between and around these streams and their tributaries, measuring and 
gauging them at different periods and meandering their courses together. 

" REFERENCES. 

" Map of the United States west of the Mississippi River, Chief of Engi- 
neers, U. S. A., 1883; Map of Indian Territory, Texas, and New Mexico, 
by Lieut. L. H. Orleman, 1875; Report of U. S. Boundary Commissioner 
Clark. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 70, 47th Congress, 1st Session; Humboklt's 
New Spain, and Marcy's Report. 

The Map of the United States is the latest issued from the War Depart- 
ment on a large scale, and we believe is correct in its representation of the 
disputed territory and of the basins of the North and Prairie Dog Town 
Forks. 

'•The black lines upon the red and black map were reduced from this 
map, and it is herewith introduced to prove the accurac}^ of the former, on 
which were measured the angles between the rivers and forks mentioned in 
the summary of the first paper. 

"The report of the United States Commissioner is presented to show that 
he found the Prairie Dog Town Fork wider than the North Fork at its in- 
tersection with the lOuth meridian, and for other reasons. 

"The map of Indian Territory, etc., signed by Lieut. Orleman, was com- 
piled from maps of scouts and surveys made up to the date of its issue. He 
quotes the authorities from which his map is compiled, among others Cap- 
tain Clous, who was acting engineer officer and astronomer of General 
Mackenzie's command. The upper Red River is, we believe, constructed 
according to Captain Clous' observations; and the opinion of the United 
States Commissioners with regard to the relative length of the two forks 
was based upon measurements on this map. 

"The report of Captain Marcy is presented to show that he regarded the 
Prairie Dog Town Fork as the main Red River, and for other purposes. 

" Humboldt's New Spain is presented to substantiate our statement in the 
first paper regarding the errors of Melish's map. 

"We hope soon to be able to oft'er other documentary evidence bearing 
upon the points at issue, among others a photograph of Melish's map 
attached to the treaty. 

"With i-egard to the right which the Texas Commission reserves at any 
time during the progress of the proceedings to oft'er evidence and argument 
to show that tlie 100th meridian of west longitude from London does not 
cross the Prairie Dog Town Fork of Red River west of its junction witli the 
North ['""ork, we can only state that we find it hard to believe that Melish's 
map will prove more accurate than the subsequent observations which have 



— 24 — 

been so carefully made and so repeatedly tested; but we are ready at any 
time to determine this intersection by astronomical observations on the spot 
whenever the Texas Commission will co-operate with us. If, however, it 
shall be found from evidence to be produced that the North Fork is the true 
boundary, we will co-operate with them in marking the corner of the boun- 
dary at that point. We are also ready and prepared, whenever the Texas 
Commission will co-operate with us, to make such other determinations in 
the field as may be necessary to determine which fork is the true Red River. 

(Signed) " S. M. Mansfield, 
"Chairman United States Boundary Commission." 

The Commission then took a recess until 1:^ o'clock, at which time busi- 
ness was resumed, with all members present except Mr. Burgess. 

The Commission on the part of Texas tlien presented and read the fol- 
lowing : 

" Office Joint Commission on Boundary, ) 
"Galveston, Texas, March 11, 1886. \ 
"Col. S. M. Mansfield, Chairman U. S. Commission: 

"Sir Your reply, denial, qualification, and restatement of issues on 

boundary, presented and made part of the record to-day, we have con- 
sidered, "and m response thereto bubmit the following: 

"The Texas Commission denied the fact alleged, that the 100th degree 
crossed the PrairiQ,Dog Town River, not because it may not be found true, 
but because Texas was never a party to any observation or survey made 
thereof as stated; but if scientific observations by both parties locate said 
meridian on said stream we will readily agree to that truth found, but not 
that the boundary described in the treaty is at that point. And for the 
same reason we deny that the Ke-che-ah-que-ho no River, or Prairie Dog 
Town Fork, so called, is wider, larger, and drains a larger area of territory; 
all this may be true, and we m.ay admit it when on the field, as in the view 
held by the Texas Commission these if true do not determine the real 
question. We submit that if now for the first time the Joint Commission 
were called upon to examine the Red River embracing the said two forks 
and to the sources thereof, and no names had been applied thereto, and the 
single fact was to be found which was the main stream of Red River, then 
the ordinary rules applied to all rivers would govern; the greater width of 
the stream, length, flow of water, and area drained, would be held the main 
river, and no doubt this finding would be unanimous. Hence we submit 
that if a part or all these, to- wit, the greater length, flow, width, and area, 
should be found with the Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no River, still the case is 
not made for the United States. The real question is, was the 
North Fork the Rio Roxo of the treaty, and laid down on 
Melish's map, or was the Prairie Dog Town River — which was known 
by the framers of the treaty ? which was known prior to that time ? 
which was laid down on Melish's map? which stream, whether it be large 
or small, long or short, wide or narrow, deep or shallow, was really in- 
tended by the treaty ? And while the Texas Commission are willing, if 
you deem it necessary, to co-operate in finding the facts named as to the 
relative size of the two streams, yet our evidence will not be directed to 
that point, but, on the contrary, to that Rio Roxo described, known, and in- 
tended in the treaty, which is, when found, the boundary line. 

"And if in the progress of the investigation of questions presented this 
evidence should disclose the necessity of introducing a new issue by either 



— 25 — 

side, and the waiving of an issue already presented, we think the same 
should be allowable, inasmuch as the Texas Commission are moved by a 
spirit of fairness and liberality and will spare no pains or expense to reach 
a fair and truthful solution and settlement of the issues in controversy be- 
tween the two o'ovei'nments. 

(Signed) ••.). T. Bkackknuiugk, 

"Chairman." 

Mr. Herndoii then offered tlie following resolution: 

•' Whekkas, The pleadings presenting the issues of the United States 
and State of Texas on the question of boundary have been sultniitted to 
the Joint (Commission on boundary, accepted, and made part of the record; 
and 

" Whereas. The Commission on the part of Texas consider it impossible 
to now, and for some time, offer the necessary evidence to support the is- 
sues presented, because the evidence desired is found in histories, treaties, 
official correspondence, messages, reports of officers, committees, oral evi- 
dence, maps and charts, requiring time to collect, .select, arrange, and print 
the same so it can be offered in consecutive order and reduced in volume, 
ready for use; and until the evidence that can be had is adduced on both 
sides, it is submitted, that it would not be wise to go into the field, because 
much of the work in the field may be rendered unnecessary by this delay; 
and the Texas part of the Joint Commission are not willing to go into the 
field until that time, and ask the adoption of the follovffng resolution: 

'■ Resolved: T. That the Joint Commission do now adjourn until the 15th 

day of June, 1886. to meet at , then and there to hear, receive, 

and consider all evidence that may be offered by both parties under the 
issues presented. 

■•II. That during said period of adjournment either party may take 
the testimony of any witness desired, by propounciing direct interrogatories 
to such witness, in writing, and the chairman of the Commission seeking 
the testimony submit said direct interrogatories to the chairman of the 
Commission on the other side, who, in ten days after the receipt thereof, 
shall add such cross interrogatories to said witness as may be desired, and 
return the said dire(;t and cross interrogatories to the said chairman seek- 
ing the testimony. And the witness may answer said direct and cross in- 
terrogatories before any notary public or United States Commissioner, who 
will cause such witness to subscribe and be duly sworn to the same, and 
tlien and there seal up the original interrogatories and answers of the witness 
thereto, and make the following endorsement on the envelope containing 
the same, 

" Deposition of . 

•■taken befoi-e . 

•• a (N. P. or U. S. Commissioner), 
and then direct to the chairman propounding the direct interrogatories." 

Which resolution being adopted, the Commission, at 1:30 p. m., ad- 
journed to meet on the 15th day of June next, at such place as might be 
designated by the Chairman of the Commission on the part of Texas. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
1st Lieut, of Engineers, 
Secretary. 



— 26 — 

The foregoing is a correct record of all proceedings of the Joint Commis- 
sion up to date. 

(Signed) S M. Mansfield. 

Maj. of Eng'rs, B'v't Lt. Col. U. S. A., 

Chairman U. S. Commission. 
(Signed) J. T. Brackenridge, 
Chairman of the Texas Commission. 



— 27 — 



Austin, Texas, 



Tuesday, June 15, 1886. ) 
The Commission met, pursuant to adjournment, at 12:30 p. m. 
Present, all the members except Mr. Burges, of the Commis- 
sion on the part of Texas. 

The Secretary then opened the envelopes containing the de- 
positions of (1) John S. Ford, (2) Hugh F. Young, and (3) G. B. 
Erath and S. P. Ross, with a statement of E. B. Turner, United 
States Judge, which depositions and statement were immedi- 
ately delivered to the Secretary of the Commission on the part 
of Texas, being part of the evidence for the State. 

Adjourned at 1:05 p. m., to meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Wednesday, June 1G, 1886. \ 
Austin, Texas, f 

The Commission met at 10:10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. 

Present, all the members. 

The Conm:iission on the part of the United States then pre- 
sented the following evidence and summary of the same: 

[See printed book, pages 71 to 97, for the same.] 

At the same time was introduced also the following extract 
from Marcy's Report of 1849 — Senate Ex. Doc. 64, 31st Congress — 
which was omitted from the extracts in the printed book at 
place aforesaid: " Hence it appears to be impracticable to find 
a road to the Rio Grande which shall follow up the course of 
either of these streams. Even if the road could be made to the 
head of one of them, it would terminate at the eastern border of 
the Llano Estacado; for no man, as I have remarked before, at- 
tempts to cross that desert except at certain points." 

[At the same time were introduced also the following maps 
omitted from the summary as printed in the place aforesaid. It 
is understood copies of these maps are to be furnished with this 
record by the Secretary of the Joint Commission, but they have 
not yet come to hand.] 

14" Humboldt's map, 1804. 

15. Pike's map. 

16. Darbv's map. 

17. Melish's map, 1818. 

18. Long's map, 1820. 

19. Carey & Lea's map, 1822. 

20. Emory's map, 1844. 

21. Cordova's map of Texas, 1849. 

22. Marcy's map, 1852. 

23. Brown & Fairbanks' map. 

24. Clark's map, 1861. 

25. Gillespie's map, 1876. 

26. Desturnell's map of Mexico, 1846. 

27. Pressler & Langerman's map, 1879. 

28. Lieut. L. H. Orleman's map. 

29. Map Chief of Engineers, 1881. 



28 — 



30. Red and black map mentioned in the first statement. 
Adjourned at 10:45 a. m. to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Thursday, June 17, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas. ) 

The Commission met pursuant to adjournment at 10:45 a. m. 

Present — All the members except Mr. Brackenridge. Mr. 
Burges occupying the chair for the Commission on the part of 
Texas. 

The Commission then, at 11:10 a. m., took a recess until 2 p. m. 

Reassembled at 2 p. m. Same members present as af the 
morning session. Mr. Burges in the chair. 

The Commission on the part of Texas then presented their 
evidence as follows: 

Memoranda of the evidence offered to and admitted by the Joint 
Commission, on the part of Texas, in support of the claim of 
Texas, on the question of boundary, June 17, 1886. 



Correspondence between Louis de Onis, minister of Spain, and 
John Quincy Adams, minister of the United States, just prior to 
the treaty of the twenty-second of February, 1819, including the 
treaty between the United States and Spain, adopted and con- 
cluded February 22, 1819. 

IL 

Treaty of limits and boundaries made and concluded between 
the Republic of Mexico and the United States, January 12, 1828. 

in. 

Convention made and signed between the United States and 
the Republic of Texas April 25, 1838, adopted and proclaimed 
October 12 and 13, 1838. 

IV. 

Discoveries on Red River, from 1542 to 1713. Extracts from 
Bancroft's History. 

V. 

Expedition of Francis X. Fragoso from Santa Fe to Fort 
Nachitoches, began June 24, 1788, found in the general land 
office in Texas, and translated into English. 

VI. 

Extracts from Pike's expedition, begun June 24, 1806. 



— 29 — 

VII. 

Extracts from Captain R. B. Marcy's expedition, made in 1852. 

VIII. 

Extracts from J. de Cordova's Guide Book, 1856. 

IX. 

Extracts from letters of R. S. Neighbors, Elias Rector, Gov- 
ernor E. M. Pease and from Wickeland's New Counties of Texas. 

X. 

Depositions of sundry persons, all taken under one set of in- 
terrogatories, propounded to each witness : 
Deposition of Captain R. B. Marcy. 
Deposition of Hugh F. Young. 
Deposition of George B, Erath. 
Deposition of S, P. Ross. 
Deposition of John S. Ford. 
Deposition of William A. Pitts. 
Deposition of Ham P. Bee. 

XL 

Humboldt's map of New Spain of 1804: (put in evidence by 
United States Commission). 

William Darby's map of 1818 (put in evidence by United 
States Commission). 

Melish's map of January 1, 1818 (put in evidence by United 
States Commission). 

Carey & Lea's map of 1822 (put in evidence by United States 
Commission). 

Desturnell's three maps, 182G to 1846 (put in evidence by United 
States Commission). 

W. H. Emory's map of 1844 (put in evidence by United States 
Commission). 

S. H. Long's map of 1820 (put in evidence by United States 
Commission). 

Daniel C. Major's map of 1859. 

Gillespie's map of 1876. 

Extract from Pressler's map of Texas (land office edition), 
offered by Texas commission. 

Captain R. B. Marcy's map of 1852, offered by Texas Commis- 
sion. 

Desturnell's map of 1847, offered by the Texas Commission. 

Strom's two maps of 1884 and 1885, offered by the Texas Com- 
mission. 

Kansas map, by agricultural board, 1885, offered by the Texas 
Commission. 

Stephen F. Austin's map of 1837, offered by the Texas Com- 
mission. 



— 30 — 

Colton's map of Texas of 1872, offered by the Texas Commis- 
sion. 

And all such general and special laws and public acts as are 
usually taken judicial notice of by courts. 

W, S. Herndon, 
Member of Commission. 

[See printed book, pages 1 to 54 inclusive, for this evidence, ex- 
cept the maps, copies of which are to be furnished by the Secre- 
tary of the Joint Commission, to be filed with the record]. 
Adjourned at 3 p. m. , to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Friday, June 18, 1886. | 
Austin, Texas. j 
The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at 11:10 a. m. 
Present — All the members. 
Adjourned at 11:40 a. m., to meet at 11 a. m. Monday. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Monday, June 31, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas. ) 
The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at 11 a. m. 
Present — All the members. 

The Commission, on the part of the United States, then pre- 
sented and read the following review of the evidence — [See 
pages 99 to 106 of printed book for this argument. 
Mr. Freeman then offered the following resolution : 
Whereas, It is stated before tlie Joint Commission that there 
is an early prospect of securing additional evidence by the Com- 
mission, on the part of Texas, 

Resolved, That the Commission do now adjourn till 10 o'clock 
Wednesday morning, to give time for the reception of such 
evidence. 

Which resolution being carried, the Commission at 1:10 p. m. 
adjourned. 

Lansing H Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Wednesday, June 23, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas. ) 
The Commission met at 10:25 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. 
Present — All the members, except Mr. Freeman, of the Com- 
mission for Texas. 

The Texas Commission then presented the following evidence 
and summary of the same : 



— 31 — 

Memoranda of additional eviderice offered to and admitted by 
the Joint Commission, 07i the part of Texas, upon the question 
of boundary, June 23, 1886. 

I. 

Letter of instructions by Governor Sam Houston to W. H. 
Russell, Commissioner on the part of Texas, to establish the 
boundary between the United States and Texas, under the act 
of June 5, 1858, dated April 28, 18G0. 

II. 

Report of W. H. Russell, Texas Commissioner on Boundary, 
April 2, 1861. 

. III. 

Message of Governor O. M. Roberts to the Legislature of Texas, 
of January 10, 1883, on the subject of boundary. 

IV. 

Deposition of Will Lambert. 

V. 

Deposition of F. M. Maddox, including the interrogatories 
propounded to all the witnesses who testified. We also refer to 
the entire evidence introduced on the part of the United States 
Commissioners, so far as the same may be applicable and useful 
in suppoi't of the issue presented by Texas. 

[See printed book, pages 51 to 70, for the evidence, etc., re- 
ferred to in this summary]. 

The Commission then, on motion of Mr. Herndon, at 10:35 
took a recess until 2 p. m. 

Reassembled at 2:15 p. m. 

Adjourned to meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Thursday, June 24, 1886 , 
Austin, Texas. \ 
The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at ]1:10 a. m. 
Present — All the members except Mr. Brackenridge. Mr. Free- 
man in the chair for the Texas Commissiim. 

Mr. Herndon then presented and read the following Report 
and Argument on the part of the Texas Commission. 

[See printed book for this Argument, covering 39 pages]. 
Mr. Brackenridge entered at 1 p. m., during the reading of the 
Argument, and assumed the chair. 

Adjourned at 2 p. m., to meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



— ,i-^ — 

Friday, June 25, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas. ] 
The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m. 
Present — All the members except Mr. Brackenridge. Mr. Sur- 
ges occup3'-ing the chair for the Texas Commission. 

Adjourned at 10:55 a. m., to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Saturday, June 26, 1886. [ 
Austin, Texas. ] 

The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at 10:35 a. m. 

Present — All the members except Mr. Herndon. 

The Commission on the part of the United States then asked 
to have the following placed on the record of the Joint Commis- 
sion, which was agreed to: 

Since a part of the record of the Joint Commission has been 
printed by the Commissioners on the part of Texas while it was 
in their possession, and contrary to our advice and without our 
approval, we feel compelled to state that we have been in no 
way a party to such action, which we believe to be opposed to 
spirit and letter of our instructions. 

The Texas Commission adding the following : 

Resolved, On the part of the Texas Commission, that the fore- 
going resolution expresses the true state of the case, and in jus- 
tice to the United States Commission, the Texas Commission 
assume all responsibility for said printing, which is done solely 
for their own convenience, and not for publication. 

Mr. Freeman then presented and read the following additional 
argument of Texas Commissioners. 

[See printed book, pages 107 to 132 inclusive, for this argu- 
ment]. 

The Commission then, at 18-15 p. m., adjourned to meet Wed- 
nesday at 11 a. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Tuesday, July 6, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas. f 
The Commission met at 11:15 a. m., pursuant to agreement. 
Present — All the members except Mr. Herndon. 
The following letters were ordered placed on the record, 
explaining why the meeting had not been held pursuant to the 
last adjournment. 



Office U. S. Boundary Commission, ) 
Raymond House, Austin, Texas, June 29, 1886. [ 
Major J. T. Brackenridge, Chairman Texas Boundary Commis- 
sion, Austin, Texas. 

Sir: — We have been surprised to learn recently that one of the 
Oommissioners on the part of Texas d«i<s,ir&^- and intends to 



— 33 — 

review our paper. The report and argument of the Texas Cora- 
mission, signed by all its members, clistinctly states, "We do 
not deem it profitable to enter upon a special denial and answer 
of each position assumed and argued by the Commission on the 
part of the United States. It is presumed they have carefully 
examined the points claimed, and would not change the view 
now declared, unless convinced by such an array of evidence 
and cogency of reasoning as could not properly be indulged by 
us in such answer, without manifest neglect of our affirmative 
issues. Therefore the Texas Commission adopts a different 
method, and proposes to answer each and every position, argu- 
ment and conclusion by the argument and conclusions herein- 
after presented on the affirmative issues of Texas involved." 

This action on the part of the Texas Commission puts upon 
us the necessity of reviewing your papers in detail, and if, after 
this work is over, we are to have the subject opened from the 
beginning, we do not see when or how anything final can be 
reached. Major Brackenridge's paper, embodying his remarks 
made at the last meeting, has not yet appeared, and we do not 
think it advisable to present any further statement until we 
have heard all that is to be said in reply to our last one. 

If the Texas Commission desire at this late date to change 
their course of proceeding and review our paper, we will be 
compelled to delay our reply until we shall have due time to 
consider all that may be said. 

An early reply to this letter will greatly facilitate the progress 
of the work before the Joint Commission. 

Very respectfully, 
[Signed] S. M. Mansfield, 

Major of Engineers, Bvt. Lt. Col. U. S. A., Member U. S. Com- 
mission. 



Office of Texas Boundary Commission, ) 
Austin, Texas, Jane 29, ]886. j 
Col, S. M. Mansfield, President U. S. Boundary Commission, 

Austin, Texas: 

Sir — Your communication of this date, expressing surprise, 
etc., has this moment reached me through Com. G. R. Freeman, 
to whom it was addressed on the envelope covering it. I have 
not been aware of Mr. Freeman's particular wish to review your 
argument until now. He informs me that the paper containing 
your argument was delivered, as' he supposes, to Com. Herndon, 
who prepared the argument signed by the Texas Commission- 
ers, and since its delivery to Com. Herndon, he, as well as my- 
self, has not had any opportunity to examine it, it having, as he 
is informed, been placed by Com. Herndon in the hands of tue 
printer to multiply copies of it for convenient examination by 
the members of the Texas Commission. Commissioner Free- 
man also informs me that he has not, nor have I, up to this time 
had access to the manuscript of it, because it is still in the hands 
of the printer, but now about ready to be delivered in printed 
form. It has been his and my wish, expectation and intention, 



— 34: — 

to examine it carefully and give it a respectful consideration 
and review, .which desire he tells me he expressed to you ver- 
bally on yesterday, and he understood you to indicate that it 
would be agreeable to the Commission on the part of the United 
States if he should do so. 

When the argument, signed by all the members of the Texas 
Commission, was presented, you will remember it was with a 
verbal explanation before the Joint Commission that it was the 
wish of some of the Texas Commission to present their views 
upon an issue not touched by your argument, and that time for 
the. preparation of those views was desired; and that there- 
upon the Commission took a recess from Thursday noon till Fri- 
day, and from Friday till Saturday to allow time for the prepa- 
ration, when they were read in joint session. You will farther 
remember that thereupon the views of myself were verbally ex- 
pressed, and it was suggested to me that it was desirable that I 
should reduce them to writing and submit them to the Commis- 
sion in that form, and that it was informally agreed that I should 
do so; and the Commission then adjourned over for five days for 
the purpose of giving time to the Commission on the part of the 
United States to prepare a reply to the arguments of the T jxas 
Commission. 

The Joint Commission has not since been in session and 
the Commission on the part of Texas has till now had 
no meeting. But as Commissioner Freeman and myself 
have, for the reasons before stated, not had the opportunity 
to consider your argument with the transcript of it before us — 
the want of opportunity being in no manner chargeable to us — it 
would seem reasonable that we should have the opportunit}' af- 
forded us. You are, I believe, aware of our unremitting atten- 
tion to the duties devolving upon the Joint Commission; and in 
view of the importance of the duties devolving upon the Joint 
Commission, and of the fact that it is the object of prime im- 
portance that we adopt every means to enable the Joint Com- 
mission to come to an agreement, it does not occur to me that 
our suggestion comes at a "late day." I hope, therefore, it will 
meet with the approval of the Commission on the part of the 
United States that we have a reasonable time — say five days 
from to-morrow morning, exclusive of Sunday — to prepare for 
your consideration such suggestions and views upon your argu- 
ment as we think pertinent and appropriate. 

It will be remembered by you that, though the words which 
you quote from the first argument presented by Commissioners 
on the part of Texas appear in that document, they were accom- 
panied with the explanation that another issue would be pre- 
sented by argument, of which the Commission was then notified, 
and for the preparation of which the Commission then took a 
recess. 

It is due to as many as three out of four of the Commission on 
the part of Texas, to say that each of them then contemplated 
presenting also a separate written argument, and they were un- 
fortunate if they did not make the fact understood by the Joint 
Commission. It would have been preferred by the Texas Com- 
missioners that the Commission on the part of the United States 



— 3d — 

should have had all the arguments before them before making 
a reply. But it was understood to be the wish of the Commis- 
sion on the part of the United States to take them in hand as 
they might be prepared. 

Should it be agreeable to the Commission on the part of the 
United States to receive and consider the additional arguments 
suggested, that of myself and Commissioner Freeman, we hope 
to present considerations worthy your serious attention and 
worth the delay it may occasion. 

[Signed], J. T. Brackenridge, 

Chairman of Texas Boundary Commission. 

Mr. Brackenridge then presented and read the following argu- 
ment : 

[See printed book for this argument, following page 151]. 
The Commission then, at 12:25, adjournea to meet at 10 a. m. 
to-morrow. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Wednesday, July 7, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas, f 
The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at 12:20 p. m. 
Present — All the United States Commission, Mr. Brackenridge 
and Mr. Freeman. 

Mr. Brackenridge presented written authority from Mr. Sur- 
ges to act as the latter's proxy, with full powers. 

Mr. Freeman then presented and read the following paper : 
'■'■Specific Revieiv of the argument of the United States Com- 
missioners." 

[See printed book, pages 123 to 151 inclusive, for this Review]. 
The Commission then, at 2:15 p.m., adjourned to meet at 10 
a. m. to-morrow. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Thursday, July 8, 1886. 
Austin, Texas. 

The Commission met pursuant to adjournment, at 11 a. m. 

Present — All the members except Mr. Burges and Mr. Brack- 
enridge. 

Major Livermore presented the following resolution : 

That in view of the absence of two members of the Texas 
Commission, and the fact that those present do not feel author- 
ized to state whether the Texas Commissioners desire to present 
any further statements to the Joint Commission, 

Resolved, That the Joint Commission take a recess until noti- 
fied by the Texas Commissioners that they are prepared for fur- 
ther action. 

Carried at 11:50 a. m. 



— 36 — 

Friday, July 9, 1886. 
Austin, Texas. 

Business resumed at 11:10 a. m., in accordance with the reso- 
lution of yesterday. 

Present — All the members except Mr. Burges. 

Mr. Herndon then presented the following Supplemental Argu- 
ment : 

[See printed book immediately following Report and Argu- 
ment of Texas Commission, of date June 23, for this supplemen- 
tal argument. 

Mr. Freeman then road the following letter : 

Austin, Texas, July 8, 1886. 
Hon. J. T. Brackenridge, President Texas Boundary Commis- 
sion, 

Sir: — The Texas Boundary Commission having authorized 
any member to withdraw his name from any report or argument 
heretofore adopted and made a part of the record, with or with- 
out his reasons therefor, the withdrawal to be in writing, signed 
by the member, which shall be placed upon the minutes of the 
Texas Commission, I beg leave to say, that upon careful exami- 
nation of the report and argument adopted on the twenty-third 
of June, and subsequently presented to the Joint Commission, 
which was prepared by the Hon. W. S. Herndon, I hereby with- 
draw my name therefrom, and beg that you present the fact to 
the Joint Commission, with the following reasons therefor : 

First. I find, in the second sentence of the second paragraph 
of it, terms which, in the hasty reading, were not noticed, and 
which I do not wish to use toward the Commissioners on the 
part of the United States. 

Second. I find on examination that it embraces matter incon- 
sistent with the views that the "treaty meant the boundary line 
in question should be the one hundredth meridian as laid down 
on the map of Melish, whether the true meridan or not," which 
was well known to be the opinion of a majority of the Commis- 
sion on the part of Texas, the matter referred to as inconsistent 
with this view being as I think not at all conducive to the sup- 
port of the main propositions of the report. For these, and 
other good reasons, not necessary to state, I withdraw my name 
from the report. I wish to say in doing so that I endorse the 
propositions announced in it to the extent that I deem it now 
too late for the United States, in view of the history and facts 
in evidence, to set up any claim to Greer county, and that the 
North Fork of Red River is, according to evidence, beyond 
doubt the upper Rio Roxo of Nachitoches or Red River of the 
treaty as laid down on Melish's map. 

G. R. Freeman, 
Member of the Texas Boundary Commission. 

The Commission then, at 11:30 a. m., adjourned to meet at 11 
a. m. Wednesday. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



— 37 — 

Wednesday, July 14, 1886. } 
Austin, Texas, f 
The commission met at 11:20 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. 
Present — All the members except Mr. Burges. 
The United States Commission then presented and read the 
following: 

[This, the final argument of the United States commission, 
is given in the printed book immediately after the argument of 
Commissioner Brackenridge]. 

The Commission then, at 13:30, agreed to take a recess until 
2:30 p. m. 

All the members of the United States commission were pres- 
ent, but there being no quorum of the Texas commission before 
3 p. m., there was nothing done. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



Thursday, July 15, 1886. ) 
Austin, Texas. f 
The Commission met at II a. m., pursuant to a call of the 
chairman. 

Present — All the members except Mr. Surges. 
The following letter from the Texas Commission was then 
presented and read: 

Office of the Joint Commission on Boundary, ) 
Austin, Texas, July H, 1886. \ 
Col. S. M. Mansfield, Chairman : 

Sir: — Your final statement, argument, reply and summing up 
of the whole case, presented to day. has been carefully exam- 
ined and considered, and while the Texas Commission disclaims 
all intention or desire to invade your undoubted right under our 
joint rules of procedure to make the closing argument and sum- 
ming up of the whole matter, still we believe it in the interest of 
the claims of Texas and therefore our duty to submit a brief 
paper, not as a reply to what is stated, so much, as to point out 
the omission of matter that seemed to us of prime importance in 
reaching a fair and just conclusion of the questions of difference. 
And we respectfully request that you will receive this paper and 
make it a part of the record. 

The subject in dispute has been divided, for convenience, into 
different divisions, and presented under different views b}^ each 
side, as well as by some of the individual members, accordingly 
as each has desired. The real questions were so plain in the 
proceedings and arguments and statements, it seemed to us, that 
they could hardly be misunderstood; still, it seems we were in 
this mistaken. The correct decision of these questions depended 
upon evidence. Both sides of the Joint Commission adduced a 
large mass of documentary evidence more or less pertinent to 
these issues; but it was not of such a conclusive character, it 
would seem, as to remove all doubts and enable the Commission 
to arrive at a proper conclusion. The Texas part of the Com- 



— 38 — 

mission, in addition to this documentary evidence, introduced 
men, mostly of great age, wliose past lives and oflScial positions 
fully qualified them to explain these matters. They testified 
under oath, and their evidence is in the record. 

These witnesses were General R. B. Marcy, Hugh F. Young, 
George B. Erath, S. P. Ross, J. S. Ford, H. P. Bee, W. A. Pitts, 
F. M. Maddox, and Will Lambert, all of whom. have been in 
public life and are well known. It will be noted, too, that this 
was the only evidence offered under the solemnities of an oath. 
We regret to say that this mass of evidence, referred to so often 
and quoted from so fully on the part of Texas, and upon which 
we mainly rested the claims of Texas under these issues, was 
either not considered at allor,if considered, referred to vaguely 
and in the treatment of collateral and immaterial issues. 

We have much confidence in the final result being favorable 
to the claims of Texas, if the evidence adduced from these wit- 
nesses shall receive the consideration and weight to which we 
think it properly entitled. 

We do not propose to criticise the manner of treating these 
issues; but the matter discussed evinces such disregard of the 
real position assumed and fortified by evidence on our part that 
it seems to demand notice at our hands. 

The claims of evidence stand or fall on the evidence adduced, 
and this evidence has not been rebutted or contradicted. In 
view of this state of the case, and the farther fact that these 
matters will not likely be reconsidered by the Joint Commission, 
but be referred to some other tribunal, we beg to earnestly com- 
mend to such final tribunal the necessity of a full ,and exhaus- 
tive examination of the evidence here referred to before reach- 
ing any conclusion. 

[Signed] J. T. Brackenridge, 

W. H. BuRGES, by 

J. T. Brackenridge. 
W. S. Herndon. 

The Commission then, at 11:30, took a recess until 1 p. m., at 
which time business was resumed, with same members present 
as before, and the United States Commission presented the fol- 
lowing reply to the preceding: 

Office op Joint Commission on Boundary, ) 
Austin, Texas, July 15, 1886. ) 
Maj. J. T. Brackenridge, Chairman Texas Boundary Commis- 
sion: 

Sir: — In reply to the paper submitted this morning, comment- 
ing upon our final summing up of the evidence and arguments, 
we beg leave to say that we disclaim any intention of neglecting 
or slighting any of the evidence submitted, and we think, upon 
reconsideration, the imputation is not warranted. Most of the 
sworn testimony was introduced by the Texas Commission to 
establish the plea against the validity of the Commission, as to 
its authority to consider the matter at issue. 

We did not find it necessary to make an elaborate answer to 
the conclusion based upon the evidence; but we stated in our 



— 39 — 

final review we extracted from all papers, documentary or other- 
wise, all views and opinions that appeared to us to bear upon 
the matter under consideration. 

The testimony of General Marcy, including his report, to 
which he referred, has received our careful consideration and 
has been liberally quoted; the facts of which he testified have 
had great weight in forming our opinions, and we have explained 
the cause of his erroneous interpretation of Melish's map. With 
regard to the other testamentary evidence, it mostly concerns 
the statements of Indians about the names of rivers and the 
physical features of the region in question, and it has been in 
substance stated by us that the testimony of the old Indians, 
half breeds, etc., is generally of an unreliable nature. As re- 
gards the opinions of witnesses, which are freely interspersed, 
we did not think them of consequence. And the whole has no 
bearing upon the knowledge which the treaty-makers possessed 
of Red River. 

[Signed] S. M. Mansfield, 

Major of Engineers, Bvt. Lt, Col. U. S. A., Senior Member of 

United States Commission. 

The Commission then, at 1:10, agreed to take a recess to 2:15 
p. m. 

Business was resumed at 2:45, with the same members present 
as before. 

Mr. Herndon offered the following resolution, which was 
adopted: 

It is moved that the rule requiring the Joint Commission to 
adjourn at 3 o'clock p. m. on each clay be suspended, and that 
the Joint Commission adjourn on this 15th day of July, 1886, at 
5 o'clock p. m., and that when the Commission adjourns to-day 
that it convenes at 9 o'clock a. m., July 16, 1886. 

The Commission on the part of the United States then pre- 
sented the following: 

For tne purpose of narrowing the controversy to the fewest 
possible propositions consistent with the grave duties imposed 
and the results to be attained, 

Resolved, That the sense of each Commission be obtained 
aflSrmatively or negatively upon each of the following resolu- 
tions, which embody the various issues before the Joint Com- 
mission: 

1. Resolved, That the Joint Commission should ascertain and 
mark the point where the true one-hundredth meridian of west 
longtitude crosses Red River. 

2. Resolved, That in finding the point where the one-hundredth 
meridian of west longtitude crosses Red River west of the con- 
fluence of what are now known as the North Fork and Prairie 
Dog Town Fork, then the true boundary should be taken at that 
one of those streams which best satisfies the provisions of the 
treaty of 1819. 

3. Resolved, That the Prairie Dog Town Fork is longer than 
the North Fork. 

•4. Resolved, That the Prairie Dog Town Fork is wider than the 
North Fork. 



— 40 — 

5. Resolved, That the Prairie Dog Town Fork drains a larger 
area than the North Fork. 

6. Resolved, That the Prairie Dog Town Fork corresponds more 
nearly to the Red River as laid down on the treaty map than the 
North Fork. 

7. Resolved, That the Prairie Dog Town Fork is the true boun- 
dary, and that the monument should be placed at the intersec- 
tion of the one-hundredth meridian with this stream. 

[Signed], S. M. Mansfield. 

Major of Engineers. 

The Texas Commission then gave their sense of the resolu- 
tions, as follows. 

In Office Joint Commission, ) 
Austin, Texas, 3uly 15, 1886. j' 
Col. S. M. Mansfield, Chairman Joint Commission, 

Sir: — The resolutions presented, voted upon and adopted by 
the Commission on the part of the United States, and submitted 
to the Texas Commission for its vote on said propositions, have 
been considered, and we now return them with the affirmative 
and negative vote of this Commission thereon, with such 
amendments thereto as herein stated: 

Resolution No. 1; not adopted in the form presented, but 
adopted in the same form with the following words added in the 
last line, after the words Red River, to wit: "in accordance 
with the terms of the treaty of 1819." 

Resolution No. 2; adopted. 

Resolution No. 3; adopted. 

Resolution No. 4; adopted, with the qualification that it is 
wider between the banks, but not in ordinary flow of water. 

Resolution No. 5; adopted, with the qualification that it does 
drain a larger area, but there is little or no rainfall on the sources 
of the stream, and hence it is taken out of the i;sual rule of esti- 
mating the size of rivers ; while the North Fork rises in the 
mountains where it rains more, and its sources are living 
streams. 

Resolution No. 6; no ! 

Resolution No. 7; no ! 

All of which is respectfully returned to the Joint Commission 
as the action of this Commission. 

[Signed], J. T. Brackenridge, 

Chairman Texas Boundary Commission. 

Adjourned at 5 p. m. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers,* Secretary. 



Friday, July 16, 1886, 
Austin, Texas. 
The Commission met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment 
Present — All the members except Mr. Purges. 
The Texas Commission then presented the following: 



— 41 — 

Office Joint Commission, ) 
Austin, Texas, July 15, 1886. ) 
Col. S. M. Mansfield, Chairman, Etc.: 

Sir: — The Texas Commission having received and acted upon 
seven special issues voted upon by the Commission on the part 
of the United States and by them adopted, having returned the 
same to you, we have formulated fourteen propositions or special 
issues arising from the issues and evidence in the whole case, all 
of which we have found anp adopted in the affirmative and now 
present to your Commission and respectfully request you to vote 
affirmativeb^ or negatively thereon. Said special issues or 
propositions are as follows, to- wit: 

Proposition I. 

Submitted to Joint Commission on the part of Texas for a vote. 

Resolved, That the North T'ork of Red River as now named 
and delineated on the maps, is the Rio Roxo or Red River delin- 
eated on Melish's map described in the treaty of February 22, 
1819, and is the boundary line of said treaty to the point where 
the one-hundredth degree of west longitude crosses the same. 

Proposition II. 

Submitted to Joint Commission. 

Resolved, That Red River from the point of beginning on said 
stream near where latitude 33° 30' crosses it westward and up 
said stream to the junction of the North Fork and Prairie Dog 
Fork of Red River, has never been surveyed or marked as a 
boundaiy line, still said Red River between said two points has 
constituted the real boundary of the treaty of 1819 from its 
adoption until now. 

Proposition III. 

Submitted to Joint Commission for a vote. 

Resolved, That the North Fork of Red River runs through 
red clay formation that gives color to its waters, and the Prairie 
Dog Fork of Red River does not run through said red clay for- 
mation, but through gypsum deposits and a whitish soil that 
does not color its waters red. 

Proposition IV. 

Submitted to Joint Commission for a vote. 

Resolved, That the North Fork of Red River is a bolder stream 
than the South Fork and discharges as much or more water dur- 
ing the year at its confluence with Prairie Dog Town Fork. 

Proposition V. 

Submitted to Joint Commission for a vote. 

Resolved, That the stream styled and called South Fork or 
main Red River was known and called prior to 1852 Chequeah- 
quehono or Prairie Dog Town river. 



— 43 — 
Proposition VL 

Submitted to Joint Commission for a vote. 

Resolved, That Capt. R. B. Marcy, while in the service of the 
United States in 1852, explored the two streams, upper Red Riv- 
er and Prairie Dog Town river, and he was the first person who 
gave and applied the names of these streams respectivelv. to 
Red River, "North Fork of Red River," and "South Fork of 'Red 
River" to Prairie Dog Town river. 

Proposition VII. 

Submitted to Joint Commission for a vote. 

Resolved, That in 1852, when Capt. R. B. Marc.y gave the 
name of North Fork to Red River, that stream had never been 
known or called by any other name than Red River prior to that 
time, and the same name continued until the maps made and 
published by the United States afterwards changed the name to 
that of the North Fork thereon. 

Proposition VIII. 

Submitted to Joint Commission for a vote. 

Resolved, That the range of mountains located east and north- 
ward of the Rio Roxo or Red River, delineated on Melish's map, 
made part of the treaty, and which said range of mountains 
runs parallel to said Red River and is now known to exist there, 
does not appear east and north of the Prairie Dog Town river, 
nor does said range appear on any map since published so rela- 
tively located in respect to said Prairie Dog Town river; and in 
fact there is no range of mountains on the east or north side of 
said last named stream. 

IX. 

Resolved, That the Spanish part of Melish's map, including 
iupper Red River, was based upon Humbolt's map of 1804. 

X. 

Resolved, That Humbolt delineated three road stations on the 
north side of upper Red River, one at the great northward bend 
of the river and one above and one below that point. 

XI. 

Resolved, That according to General Marcy's testimony a road 
along the north side of the Kecheaquehono was impracticable, 
and there was no vestige of such road there, while there were 
deep ruts and signs of an ancient road on the divide north of the 
North Fork. 

XII. 

Resolved, That the road indicated as on the north side of the 
Red River of Humbolt and Melish. by the road stations of Hum- 



— 43 — 

bolt's map, passed down the North Fork of Red River and ident- 
ifies it as the Red River of Melish and Humbolt's maps. 

XIII. 

Eesolved, That the publication of Bringer's maps of upper 
Louisiana, from the Mississippi to the one-hundredth or twenty- 
third meridian by Melish, as related by the latter, gave the 
treaty-makers information of the surveys of Bringer to the vi- 
cinity of the bend of Red River and the Wichita mountains, and 
accounts for the correct delineation on Melish's map of ranges 
of mountains along his upper Red River as they are found along 
the North Fork. 

XIV. 

Resolved, That, according to the terms of the treaty of 1819, 
between Spain and the United States, it was the intention of the 
parties to the treaty that the boundary established by the treaty, 
from Red River to the Arkansas river, should be along the line 
of the one-hundredth meridian of west longitude from London, 
as that line was laid down in Melish's map of the United States, 
improved to January 1, 1818. 

Respectfully submitted, 

[Signed], J. T. Bra^ckenridge, 

Chairman Texas Commission. 

The Commission on the part of the United States then pre- 
sented their opinions of the foregoing propositions in the fol- 
lowing : 

Office Joint Commission on Boundary, \ 
Austin, Texas, July 16, 1^86. f 
Major J. T. Brackenridge, Chairman Texas Boundary Com- 
mission, 

Sir: — The fourteen resolutions adopted and presented by the 
Texas Commission to the United States Commission, having 
been duly considered, are now returned with the opinion of this 
Commission in regard to each duly expressed. We have applied 
the term rejected to some of these resolutions to which we do 
not assent. Some of these are partially true, and our previous 
statements explain to what extent we concur, and wherein we 
differ. 

Proposition No. I; no. 

Proposition No. II; yes, excepting the words "surveyed or." 

Proposition No. Ill; yes, excepting the words "and the Prai- 
rie "' and all following. 

Proposition No. IV; rejected. 

Proposition No. V; yes. adding the words "and other names." 

Proposition No. VI; rejected. 

Proposition No. VII; no. 

Proposition No. VIII; rejected. 

Proposition No. IX; yes, excepting the word "upper," substi- 
tuting therefor the words "the sources of." ' 

Proposition No. X; no. 

Proposition No. XI; rejected. 



— 44 — 

Proposition No. XII; no. 
Proposition No, XIII; no. 
Proposition No. XIV; rejected. 
[Signed], S. M. Mansfield, 

Maj. of Engineers, Brv't Lt. Col. U. S. A. 
[Signed], W. R. Livekmore, 

Major of Engineers. 
[Signed], Thos. L. Casey, 

First Lieut, of Engineers. 
[Signed]. Lansing H. Beach, 

First Lieut, of Engineers. 



The following resolution was then presented by Mr. Herndon: 

Whereas, The Joint Commission on Boundary, created under 
the acts of the United States Congress and the Texas Legisla- 
ture, to establish the boundary and mark the point where the 
one-hundredth degree of west longitude crosses Red River 
according to the terms of the treaty of February 32, 1819, be- 
tween the United States and Spain, was duly organized under 
said acts on the twenty-third day of February, 1886, and 
• Whereas, The said Joint Commission has since its organization 
carefully investigated the subject committed to it, has adduced 
a large mass of documentary evidence more or less pertinent, 
presented a number of maps, introduced witnesses who have 
testified by depositions, examined all attainable matter where 
there was reason to believe any pertinent evidence could be ob- 
tained, and carefully considered the statements and arguments 
in writing by each Commission, and some individual members, 
and 

Whereas, After all the attainable evidence had been intro- 
duced, and the arguments and statements on the part of Texas 
and the United States have been presented and considered, and 
special issues, propositions or findings of fact based upon the 
whole case, were then pi-esented to the Joint Commission for a 
vote on each separately, and the same were all voted upon and 
made a part of the record, and the votes taken show a disagree- 
ment on the question of fact necessary to be determined, to wit, 
the river of the treaty. Therefore before attempting the next 
duty required under the authority in the acts creating the Com- 
mission, the location of the point where the one-hundredth 
degree of west longitude crosses the river described in the 
treaty. 

Resolved, That the Joint Commission having done everything 
possible under the circumstances and being unable to proceed 
further with the work in hand, do now adjourn without day, 
and that each Commission make its report to the proper author- 
ities and await its instructions. The original record of the pro- 
ceedings of the Joint Commission shall accompany the report of 
the Commission on the part of the United States and a certified 
copy of said original record shall accompany the report made 
by the Texas Commission to the Governor of the State. 

Carried at 1:50 p. m. 

Mr. Freeman presented the following explanation and protest : 



— 45 — 

Office of Joint Boundary Commission, ) 
Austin, July 16, 1886. j" 
To Col. S. M. Mansfield and J. T. Brackenridge, Chairmen of 
the Joint Boundar^y Commission: 

Gentlemen: — I beg leave as a member of the Joint Boundary- 
Commission to say that the final resolution now being offered 
to the Joint Boundary Commission states only one of the pre- 
liminary issues upon which the two Commissions do not agree 
and which have been maintained and insisted upon b}'^ the Texas 
Commission before the Joint Commission, throughout our inves- 
tigations, as will appear from the proceedings of the Joint Com- 
mission, and I respectfully ask that this statement be entered' 
upon the record of the Joint Commission by the Secretary as an 
explanation of my reason for voting against the resolution and 
as my protest against the same. 

[Signed] G. R. Freeman, 

Commissioner on the Part of Texas. 
Adjourned sine die. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary. 



[Appendix A, to paper of March 4, 1886, by United States Com- 
mission.] 
Executive Office, State of Texas, I 
Austin, December 14, 1885. f 
Hon. Wm. C. Endicott, Secretary of War, Washington, D. C: 

Sir:— I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
favor of the 8th inst., in which you inform me that the Presi- 
dent is of opinion that the order detailing the Commissioners in 
the Greer County Boundary question is sufficiently comprehen- 
sive. I cannot agree with this conclusion or your statement that 
the ascertainment of the true Red River and then marking the 
point where the one hundredth meridian crosses it is the whole 
duty devolved upon the Commission. Certainly you are correct as 
far as you go, but the scope of the treaty between the United 
States and Spain of 1819, and the Act of Congress and the Leg- 
islature of Texas devolves another dutv vital to a correct under- 
standing of the treaty. It was well known, no doubt, to both 
contracting parties that Melish's map was not correct. He knew 
there was a Red River of Louisiana, and that it had a source, 
but where the source was, or the tributaries or branches, if any, 
were wholly unknown to him and to the contracting parties. 
This is the conclusion dniwn from the language of the treaty. 

If the two parties had intended that the boundar}^ should be at 
the point where the true one-hundredth meridian crossed the 
river, it would have been surplusage and quite unnecessary to 
have added, after discussing the boundary, the words, "All ac- 
cording to Melish's map as improved up to 1818." According to 
all well known rules of construction this last clause was intend- 
ed to govern and control what had preceded. The ascertain- 
ment of the point where the true one-hundredth meridian crossed 



— 46 — 

Red River was an easy task, one that well known rules of 
mathematics and astronomy could aid in ascertaining. It was 
capable of demonstration and incapable of furnishing any 
grounds of misunderstanding between the two governments. 
The agents of both parties could ascertain it. The true meridian 
was stable and so was the stream referred to. But, being con- 
scious of the errors of Melish's map, and that it would not stand 
the test of demonstration, but having it before them they un- 
doubtedly intended that the boundary should be at the point 
where Melish showed the one-hundredth meridian on Red River. 
The concluding language of the treaty, as shown above, it seems 
. to me, carries the conclusion beyond a doubt that the}^ intended 
the boundary to be where Melish placed the one-hundredth mer- 
idian. Any other construction would convict the governments 
and their envoys of using language contrary to well known 
rules of construction and of adding a meaningless clause to the 
treaty. What possible use could the clause be unless intended 
to govern. It maybe, therefore, that Melish's map may show, that 
the one-hundredth meridian crosses Red River east of Greer 
county. I onl}^ insist that the language of the treaty be fol- 
lowed in laying down rules and giving instruction to the Com- 
missioners. It cannot be true that either or both parties can 
find or ascertain what the treaty means unless they take the 
whole language used. It is supposed that the business of the 
Commission is to find the division line between Spain and 
Mexico on the one side and the United States on the other, and 
this cannot be done correctly if the Commission is restricted to 
the use of a part of the language of the treaty. I only insist 
that the language of the treaty be used in giving instructions to 
the Commissioners. 

Be pleased to lay this communication before the President, 
after reading it. I respectfully ask his personal consideration 
of the letter. I am very respectfully. 

Your obedient servant, 

John Ireland, 
Governor of Texas. 



[First Indorsement.] 

War Department, \ 
December 19, 1885. f 
Respectfully referred to the Chief of Engineers for remark, 
with request that this paper may be returned to the Secretary 
of War, on Mondav, the 21st inst. By order of the Secretary of 
War. 

[Signed], John Trusedale, 

Chief Clerk. 



[Second Indorsement.] 
Office of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, 

December 21, 1885. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. A tracing 



— 47 — 

from Melish's map, showing the one hundredth meridian and 
the Red River, is herewith, also a copy of map showing the 
boundary in question as located by the United States Commis- 
sioners in 1857-60. 

The Commissioners appointed by executive orders, dated Sep- 
tember 28 and October 26, 1885, have been furnished with a 
copy of the tracing and are required to run and mark the boun- 
dary line in obedience to the provisions of the act of Congress, 
approved January 31, 1885, which act refers to the treaty with 
Spain executed Feb. 22, 1819 and Melish's map. It is thus obvi- 
ous that the scope of the executive orders above referred to in- 
clude all that the Governor of Texas suggests and all that is 
required by the act of Congress. 

[Signed]', John G. Parke, 

Acting Chief of Engineers. 

(4608, G. R., 1885, one inclosure.) 



[Appendix B to paper of March 4, 1886, by United States Com- 
mission. 

War Department, Washington City, 

Janucu^y 5, 1886. 

Sir: — Your letter of the fourteenth ultimo, acknowledging the 
receipt of my letter of the eighth ultimo, informing you of the 
opinion of the President that the executive orders detailing the 
United States Commissioners to make the boundary line be- 
tween a portion of Indian Territory and Texas was sufficiently 
comprehensive to carry out the provisions of Congress, was duly 
received. 

In 3^our letter you state that you can not agree with this con- 
clusion, and that the supposition is stated that the business of 
the Commission is to find the boundary line between Spain and 
Mexico on the one side and the United States on the other, and 
you ask that in giving instructions to the Commissioners the 
language of the treaty between the United States and Mexico 
following that between the United States and Spain of 1819 be 
used. 

In compliance with your request that this matter be again 
laid before the President I beg to advise you that this has been 
done, and after due consideration, no reason is seen why his 
order on this subject heretofore issued does not sufficiently 
cover the case, and any modification of the same must therefore 
be declined. 

The executive orders in the case, copies of which have been 
furnished you, are considered to include all you suggest in the 
matter, and all that is required by the act of Congress. The 
Commission is to perform the duty prescribed by the act of 
Congress, and the orders do not and should not limit the extent 
of the powers of the Commission. 

As has heretofore been stated, the Commissioners who have 
been appointed on the part of the United States, have been 
instructed to hold themselves in readiness to co-operate with 



— 48 — 

the Commissioners appointed by the State of Texas, whenever 
they SLTe ready to proceed with the work required by the act. 
I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 
[Signed], Wm. C. Endicott, 

Secretary of War. 
Hon. John Ireland, Governor of Texas. 

The foregoing is a true copy of the record of the proceedings 
of the Joint Commission on Boundary between Indian Territory 
and Texas. 

Lansing H. Beach, 
First Lieut, of Engineers, Secretary of Joint Commission. 



IBJL?9 



